If Truman refused to use the atomic bomb on Japan, what should he have done instead?

[HardTimes99]

I think that HST arguably had 2 other options:

1) Naval and aerial quarantine of Japanese home islands

2) Conventional land invasion.

After what imperial Japan had done to its Asian neighbors, were options 1 or 2 preferable to using atomic weapons?

I consider myself radically anti-war (and spent much of the past decade in twice- and thrice-weekly anti-war vigils against the Bush Junta), but I think there are certain times when wars must be fought (World War II being one such case). I think President Truman chose properly among a set of bad choices. He made the least-bad choice. But I think those who criticize the use of atomic weapons against Japan should explain what other choice he might have had or made.

[The Link]

1. Allow them to kill 15+ million more civilians. Allow tens of thousands US soldiers to die.

[SharonAnn]

57. My father was in the army in Hawaii at that time, preparing for a land invasion.

It would've been a bloodbath for both sides.

[Tagurrit]

136. Arnaud Amalric (died 1225)

I notice that the most hawkish replies are from those who don't take the time or trouble to write anything more than "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. ("Kill them. For the Lord knew those that are His own.&quot . The Abbott Amalric is most remembered for advising thus to a soldier who was worrying about killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics during the sack of Cathar stronghold of Béziers in 1209. If you're not going to let any information in why bother wasting your time reading these posts? How do I know that? I hardly see any questions from the one liners replying to the information others research or question. Mind closed, case closed. Why search if you've already found? And if you believe you're right how are you going to convince the rest of us if you're one lining it?

[KansDem]

2. Wasn't it estimated that a "conventional land invasion" would cost 500,000 American lives?

What about blowing up a deserted island near Japan and saying if Japan didn't surrender, the next one will be dropped on the mainland?

[Koios]

5. Cuz ...

... they were uncertain that both would work; hell; it was still questionable if either would work.

[hunter]

60. They knew the Uranium bomb would work.

The danger of that design was the number of ways it might explode by accident. That's one reason they only made five of them. The other reason was that plutonium was easier to make by the ton than highly enriched uranium.

Plutonium isn't usable in a gun type bomb, the nuclear reaction tears a gun type bomb apart before it really has a chance to get going.

It was the detonators and electronics that were tricky in the implosion type plutonium bomb. This technology was one of the great atomic "secrets." The Trinity test fully demonstrated that they'd got it right. But even that wasn't much of an unknown. The uncertainty of the bombs working is another part of the myth. The reality is they knew the bombs would work.

What was unknown was the effect of nuclear weapons on cities. After Japan surrendered Hiroshima and Nagasaki were flooded with photographers, scientists, and technicians to study and document the damage done in minute detail. Nagasaki was a battlefield test of a "Fat Man" style bomb. 120 of those were made, all retired by 1950 as better, more efficient implosion bombs were built.

[Koios]

62. You're confusing ...

... what we know, now. Then? Nope. The Truman Admin had grave doubts, based on what they were told. Fact.

Read "Truman" by David McCullough. It won a Pulitzer, and was well deserving of it.

[hunter]

111. We would have kept bombing Japan until they surrendered.

With or without atomic weapons.

Once we had atomic weapons, we used them.

Mostly it's a dramatic end to the "story" of World War II, which would have ended much the same without "the bomb."

[Hekate]

98. The Japanese government and its people would not have believed it

The people were suffering, but were prepared to defend Japan with sharpened bamboo stakes if necessary. It was set to be an unbelievable bloodbath.

[wercal]

105. Large cities were deliberately targeted for shock effect

The firebombing of Tokyo killed over 100k people in one night, and the Japanese didn't surrender. We obviously had the ability to kill them in great number, every night...but that didn't scare them.

So, one of the key reasons the A bomb was used was to be a psychological blow....one that would show the Japanese how their nation could be utterly destroyed in a matter of minutes.

Blowing up an abandoned area would not do that. And neither would blowing up a city that had already been bombed. So, a relatively untouched city (Hiroshima) was chosen.

And you may notice - they still didn't surrender. It took a second bomb at Nagasaki to get the point across.

So dropping a bomb in a deserted area would just have been a waste of one bomb, and an unnecessary risk to the air crews.

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. And an estimated 10 million Japanese.

In 1945, in preparation for operation Downfall, the military stamped a half-million purple heart medals. They are still using that stockpile 70 years later.

[Koios]

3. Eliminate the Project ...

... and bury it forever, in secret, in hopes of never allowing the American People to know we had a superbomb, which could have ended the war years sooner, saving the lives of an estimated 240,000 Americans.

Read: never would have happened. If you have something that can save that many American lives, you use it. Period.

[Mnemosyne]

24. Because 'American' lives are worth so much more? nt

[Koios]

26. Yes, at the time ...

... since:

1. We were attacked and did not start a war with Japan

2. In times of war, the idea is to keep your own folks alive, even at, and especially at, ideally, the lives of the opposition. But I can understand how that concept is really, really obscure, and thus suggest reading the work of Sun Tzu.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. In a tota war? Yes. Lives of your troops are worth any greater number of enemy, even civilians. N/T

[Phillyindy]

4. How about...

...dropping one on an uninhabited island off Japan, along with a warning that the next one will be mainland?

How about a military target and not one packed with civilian families?

The option we chose should have been on the table. Who could possibly justify this to their God?

[stevenleser]

12. That was discussed. The fear was of the possibility of a well publicized dud aka fizzle

Read upthread, these bombs were still very much in the experimental phase and no one was sure they would work as advertised.

Supposedly a dud/fizzle would undermine our efforts to get them to surrender.

[LordGlenconner]

18. Also

They did not surrender immediately after the first bomb was dropped. It took the second bomb to make that happen.

[Bragi]

154. That was a viable alternative

I think he could have dropped one as a demonstration. If they didn't surrender, he could then have dropped one on a city, then waited for surrender, or then begin an invasion. I don't think it was necessary to drop two on two cities. The demonstration bomb alone may well have caused a public uprising and forced a surrender, or at least the collapse of the Japanese government.

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. He should have anticipated all of the unjust wars we'd wage in the future

and hung his head in shame. Then he should have ordered everyone to come home
and write letters of apology to the Japanese for the evil thoughts we had about them.

[kestrel91316]

7. We didn't start WWII, but we sure ended it. Eff the haters. My grandfather

was on a ship headed to Japan for the big invasion when they dropped the bomb. He and all his fleet mates LIVED because of that bomb. And who knows how many millions more people lived who would have died if the invasion had happened and the war had gone on.

The atomic bombs were preferable to carpet bombing the entire country, IMHO.

[Marrah_G]

10. That doesn't make what we did right

Our government targeted two civilian cities. They killed millions of human beings in the blink of an eye. Women, children, elderly people. It was the purposeful slaughter of innocent people.

I realize that you are very glad that your grandfather didn't die. I'm glad your grandfather didn't die, because then we wouldn't have you. But I think it's also okay to realize that although this stopped your grandfather from having to be part of the invasion, what we did was wrong.

[The Link]

13. Millions?

Are you referring to the atomic bombings?

[Marrah_G]

65. Sorry 250,000, still to much

It would be like if Iraq had dropped an atomic bomb on one of our cities and killed your family. Innocent human being died. We didn't target a military base or factory. We targeted women and children. Elderly and babies. It wasn't right.

And I think our country KNOWS it was wrong because they have not been used again.

[The Link]

66. I must disagree. My family was enslaved by the Japanese...some killed.

They were civilians. And thousands more would have died.

[Marrah_G]

69. And what the Japanese did was a horrible thing

That doesn't mean what we did was a good thing.

Hopefully the world will never see the use of such a weapon again.

[The Link]

70. Again, I disagree. For millions in China, Korea, etc..

it was a good thing. 20 million dead civilians at the hands of the Japanese is unacceptable.

[Marrah_G]

72. It looks like we will just have to agree to disagree.

[wercal]

106. Agreed

Ever been to Korea....every major monument has a plaque which lists when it was built, when the Japanese destroyed it, when it was rebuilt, when the Japanese destroyed it a second time, and when it was rebuilt for a second time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. The estimated deaths from a full invasion was as many as 10 million Japanese. n/t

[tumtum]

14. I have a difference of opinion than you.

Truman made the correct call, my dad lived to see the end of WWII, which may have not happened if Truman hadn't made the call.
My reasons are somewhat personal and selfish, but, I don't care, at least I'm here able to argue.

[NuclearDem]

34. I understand your point, but the death toll was, at the worst, 250k

And that includes the casualties from the radiation poisoning.

Again, agree, but millions is overstating it.

[Marrah_G]

64. Sorry 250,000, still to much

[Hekate]

107. Seriously, that war was Hell on Earth. Ask the Chinese what they thought of the Rape of Nanking...

... or the Filipinos about the occupation and the Bataan Death March. Japan started what they referred to as the Greater East Asia War before they ever attacked Pearl Harbor. Uncounted millions of civilians died in Asia, and not by our hands.

The US military had fought the Japanese military from one Pacific island to another -- hard and bloody battles against an unyielding enemy. Civilian Japanese at home had been propagandized to believe they should similarly resist any attempt to invade Japan, without military weapons, with sharpened bamboo stakes if necessary. Any invasion would have been a bloodbath of civilians, as well as of our own military men. Japan would not surrender.

In the following table, please note the disparity of civilian deaths in Japan versus, say, China. Under half a million, versus 18 million.

Civilian deaths:

Japan 393,400
China 18,000,000
Netherlands East Indies 4,000,000
Philippines 1,000,000

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

[Marrah_G]

135. Hekate I just see this differently then you do

There will never be a time or place that I think it's okay for any human being to drop an atomic bomb on another human being. Nor am I one who believe that just because our enemy is doing evil, evil shit to innocent people that that gives us the right to do evil, evil shit to innocent human beings.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. You must be talking of Dresden and Tokyo

Because the nuclear bombs did not even hit a quarter million, but both Dresden and Tokyo were much higher...and I include in those numbers the Hiroshima maidens who were (still are) tracked by medical personnel.

[LanternWaste]

49. Implicating ethics and morality into conflict is a rather diaphanous baseline

Implicating ethics and morality into conflict is a rather diaphanous baseline. Von Clausewitz wrote in his classic, 'On War', that the only purpose to wage war is to prevent your opponent from being able to wage war, and to render him politically helpless and militarily impotent. If we take that as a truism, it denies any other moral absolutes other than success.

During the Revolutionary War, Britain stated time and time again that the way the colonial forces were fighting were "unfaire, and laking any honors of men", yet the British adopted those same small-piece tactics and put them to efficient use in the Peninsular campaigns of the Napoleonic conflicts in Europe. Ironically, the U.S. cried foul when the North Vietnamese forces did the very same thing in the 1960s. Same tactics, different moralities, hence different ethical judgments.

Stimson (SecNav) was given an analysis (extrapolated from casualty rates from the Philippines campaign through Okinawa) that Operation Downfall would not only result in over one million American casualties (killed, wounded, captured), but up to seven million Japanese casualties also(!). Regardless of the eventual impotence of the Imperial Army, it was still the prime obstacle to overcome. Although hindsight tells us those numbers may have been exaggerated, neither Stimson nor Truman knew this.

So Truman asked himself, "what can we do to bring this war to an end as soon as possible with as few casualties to the Allies as possible?" Drop the bomb.

Which brings us to targeting. After LeMay's 44-45 bomber campaign in the Japanese homeland, there were no real industrial or military targets left, but the Japanese army was still fighting, still defending, and still killing tens of thousands civilians in Asia. So we can presume that the denial of a military/industrial base would not deter Japan from continuing the fight as long as possible. (Also, Japan had been stockpiling it's fuel since being forced out of Manila, and had stopped intercepting the US bombers to preserve its interceptors for they saw as the eventual invasion of the Japanese mainland). Interesting to note is that Kyoto was initially considered a prime target, but Stimson objected due to its cultural importance). During the fire-bombing, and preceding the atomic bombing, the US did in fact, drop millions of leaflets warning the population of impending raids (Japanese authorities arrested any civilian caught with one of the leaflets on their person), the population of Hiroshima was among the recipients of these leaflets mere days prior to the bombing.

In the end, "The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration..." And historical (rather than editorial) precedence concludes this is what drove the final militant faction of the government (the faction that was in de facto control of the government) to its final surrender.


I say none of this to change your mind, only to allow you access to some information you may not have had prior to this.
Kenneth Nichols, The Road to Trinity; Joseph Persico, Roosevelt's Secret War; and Gruhl Werner's, 'Imperial Japan's World War II' are very, very good sources for some meaty exposition on the moral dilemmas all countries faces in that conflict.

[Marrah_G]

71. Thank you for all the information

What the Japanese did in Asia was horrible. But, in my opinion, what we did was horrible also. Hopefully the world will never again see a weapon like that used.

[LanternWaste]

81. I can't argue with that at all; and I've always had a difficult time rationalizing...

" in my opinion, what we did was horrible also..."
I can't argue with that at all; and I've always had a difficult time rationalizing "kill X amount of people to save Y amount of people..." as it reduces us to metrics rather than people, mere numbers being crunched by people who will never be fully aware of the true consequences of those decisions.

I hope to never, ever (ever!) be put in a position in which I have to choose one (or more) life over another-- regardless of how just/rational/moral that decision may seem at the time.


"Hopefully the world will never again see a weapon like that used...."
I think the world will see it happen again. Sooner rather than later, and in such a way as to shock every human on the planet. My own (selfish) hope though, is that I've shuffled off this mortal coil before the entire planet goes bat-shit crazy again.

[HardTimes99]

99. What a magisterial post! Should be required reading, imho. Thank you for taking

the time to draft and source it.

IIRC, Clausewitz also said that 'war is the extension of diplomacy by other means,' a hard-eyed and unblinking assessment of how conflicts between nation states begin (and end).

I almost want to suggest you turn your post into an OP of its own, but that might be a bit of overkill. Still, much appreciated.

[Hekate]

110. This post should be bookmarked as a good historical source and commentary

Thanks, LanternWaste.

[Tagurrit]

119. Well Written and Factual Account

In the last days of WWII the Japanese were offered terms prior to the decision to use the bomb several times, the last being made through the Swiss. The sticking point was that the Japanese objected to the term "unconditional surrender" on the belief that the Emperor would be arrested or worse. They left the door open to "terms" and those terms concerned only the Emperor. In the end the surrender signed on the battleship Missouri were exactly the terms the Japanese agreed to in principal weeks before in secret negotiations with the United States. The term "Mokusatsu" was used by the prime minister in the Japanese press and taken as a reply to the US offers. The term means to “kill by silence”, which can and was taken as a contemptuous response when in fact the term can mean "we don't know what the hell to do", which is what was most likely meant. So the "real" reason the bomb was dropped had little to do with strategic necessity and was more along the lines of miscommunication and misunderstanding. As you point out the Japanese military continued to wage war wherever the armies were and in retrospect the last Japanese soldier didn't surrender until March 19, 1972 so there was no question the military would fight to the last man (as they did) atomic bomb or not. However Truman was operating without all the information he needed to make a decision about using a nuclear bomb so the decision was made in haste. I understand in war time time is compressed but I truly believe President Roosevelt would have taken the time to make sure he know exactly what the Japanese meant. In fairness to President Truman Roosevelt kept him in the dark about the bomb and kept him at arms length while Roosevelt was living about the discussions going on high in the military about the moral issues in using the bomb. In the end the Japanese were demoralized, fragmented between the military and the government and through they knew they weren't going to “win” the war thought they could negotiate terms other than complete “unconditional” surrender. In the end the terms were exactly as they had been weeks before. Truman did not insist on “unconditional” surrender and therefor the bombs were unnecessary. General Eisenhower himself said, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” I concur.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Well said. n/t

[DCBob]

148. +1

very clear, fair, and accurate assesment of the situation. Thanks for posting.

[cthulu2016]

59. 135K in Hiroshima. Less than that in the second bombing.

[Dawgs]

68. Jesus Christ. STILL TOO MUCH!!! n/t

[Hekate]

113. See my post #107 for civilian casualties in Asia and the Pacific

Japan started the Greater East Asia War for hegemony over the entire region before they bombed Pearl Harbor and brought us into it.

In the following partial table, please note the disparity of civilian deaths in Japan versus, say, China. Under half a million, versus 18 million.

Civilian deaths:

Japan 393,400
China 18,000,000
Netherlands East Indies 4,000,000
Philippines 1,000,000

link at post #107

[tumtum]

114. Hiroshima was chosen because of it's strategic military value.

http://worldwar2-facts.com/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction

Nagasaki was a secondary target and was selected because of it's strategic ports and military industrial output.

The city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan. Although it was not among the list of potential targets selected by Oppenheimer’s committee, it was added later due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment. This was the very reason why Sweeney hoped that Kokura would have clear weather for the attack, thus avoiding an attack on Nagasaki which housed a greater civilian population.

These cities weren't chosen because of the civilian population, they were chosen because of the war making capacity.

[tumtum]

108. My father might have been on the same troop transport

as your grandfather, my dad was slated for the first wave of Marines to hit the Japanese beach for the invasion.
I have no qualms about Truman make that difficult decision. It probably saved my dad's and hundreds of thousands of American servicemen's lives.

[roamer65]

131. I had a relative on one of islands that was to be used for the firebombing.

It was also the island that was used for the delivery of the two nukes...he told me some very interesting stories before he passed away.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Fair questions

I'm interested in reading the responses.

[Hekate]

115. So much ignorance of historical reality

It's really quite dispiriting.

[JustAnotherGen]

124. ITA

Truman - did the best he could with what he had. Are nuclear arms horrific? Absolutely. But I doubt those men envisioned an Arms Race and Boomer children hiding under their desks in drills at that time. Now I have black and native blood mixed in with my European. If I'm told to forgive Jim Crow and the decimation of the Native tribes - then as a Democratic Party member - I must also release this. It can't be undone.

And was Truman a racist as a young man? Absolutely - and so was Wilson. But Truman - though it took 15 years to implement - started desegregation in the military with one simple E.O. He did the best he could - as did Wilson - to try to bring an end to insanity. The key is to never pass this way again.

Now I'm watching LBJ on MSNBC - he too did the best he could with what he had. How many kids did he kill that day? I'm not sure the precise number on the day he signed the VRA - but he gave me a shot.


My concerns today - here and now - not up for debate: An end to the insanity in the Middle East. Enough. Here and now I hope I can impact - I can do nothing to undo what happened almost seven decades ago. And I won't apologize for it.

[Hekate]

130. Yours is a very wise and insightful post, and I thank you for it.

Out of this entire thread, yours is my favorite.

[JustAnotherGen]

133. Thanks

I guess I'm just more concerned about our conduct today. I protested both Iraq and Afganistan to no avail. But it's got to stop. Syria needs to be discussed today - not Hiroshima and Nagasaki - unless we are remembering the horrors war unleashes on the world.

[jberryhill]

9. What was Japan capable of doing at that point?

And why did we not "end" the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts the same way?

[geek tragedy]

15. Rebuild its armed forces?

Launch suicide/scorch earth attacks from the territories it occupied.

Also, potentially millions would have starved/perished from allied bombing and destruction of Japanese infrastructure necessary to contain Japan.

Why did we not end Vietnam and the Korean war that way? We weren't at war with them, and the policy wasn't 'unconditional surrender.' Also, Viet Nam didn't terrorize an entire hemisphere.

[jberryhill]

121. News much? - Japan Unveils Biggest Warship Since WWII

http://www.voanews.com/content/japan-unveils-biggest-warship-since-ww2/1724301.html

Japan has unveiled its biggest warship since the Second World War as part of a plan to bolster its defense of territorial claims in disputed waters.

[geek tragedy]

122. 68 years later.

Much better than the mistake made at Versailles after World War I where Germany re-armed within a decade.

[jberryhill]

123. Patience is a virtue

[geek tragedy]

127. Had Germany been forced to wait until 1986 to re-arm itself . . . nt

[stevenleser]

21. Because their use became immediately controversial after WWII. Much like Chemical weapons after WWI

The potential use was considered barbaric.

[Jenoch]

29. "And why did we not "end" the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts the same way?"

MAD- mutually assured destruction. The Soviets had 'the bomb' during those conflicts.

[hack89]

39. Kill, starve and abuse millions of civilians in the lands they had conquered?

Saving the lives of all those innocents in China and SE Asia was sufficient justification for the bombs.

[jberryhill]

52. And in what lands were they by August 1945?

And what material difference did it make in North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, or China for that matter.

Are you saying that the Japanese would have eventually done to the Cambodians what the Cambodians did to themselves?

We were fighting the Chinese by proxy in the Korean peninsula in short order. Had we come to a settlement with the Japanese, neither the Korean War nor the Vietnamese war would have been necessary.

Getting the Japanese out of those areas cost more American lives than keeping the Japanese in would have.

I had no idea that Korea and Southeast Asia since 1945 were all unicorns and rainbows.

[hack89]

54. The Japanese murdered between 3 and 10 million civilians from 1937 to 1945

The table next lists estimates of the total Asian forced laborers who died from Japanese maltreatment. The most notorious case of indifference to the health and welfare of prisoners and forced laborers was the building of the Burma-Thailand railroad in 1942 to 1943. Estimates of those killed, including POWs, are given (lines 97 to 104) in the table. I already included these POW deaths under the POW total (line 93). As for Asian forced laborers working on the railroad, 30,000 to 100,000 died, probably 60,000 (line 105).

I also list forced labor deaths for specific countries, beginning with Indonesia (Dutch East Indies, at the time). How many Indonesian forced laborers were actually conscripted by the Japanese is unknown. Estimates run as high as 1,500,000 (line 110a); even more speculative is the death toll. This varies in the sources from 200,000 to 1,430,000 deaths, with perhaps the most likely figure being 300,000 (the figure "accepted" by the United Nations--line 114).

For the Burma-Thailand railroad, and for Indonesia, Korea, and Manchuria, 600,000 to 1,610,000 Asian forced laborers died (line 131). Note that this is probably very conservative, even were some of the estimates too high for a few of the countries included. No figures, even a basis for rough estimates, are available in the sources for Malaysia, Indochina, and Burma (except for those dying while working on the Burma-Thailand railroad). Yet, based on Japanese behavior in other countries, many forced laborers from these countries also must have died elsewhere.

A problem is how to handle the forty-three massacres for which there is a question mark (line 221). For the six massacres in this list for which there are estimates, the average is 1,348 killed. In China, where many more reports of the number massacred were available, the average killed for all the low estimates was 800.2 Moreover, the average killed in massacres in Indonesia (lines 253-284) for which figures are given is a low of 820 (line 286). Taking the three averages into account (1,348, 800, and 820), I assume an average of 800 for the 43 question marks (line 220). This average times the number of question marks gives a low of 42,000 killed; a high of 85,000 if doubled. These figures are surely conservative, since they do not take into account the many massacres that undoubtedly occurred, but were not reported in the sources. Consider that in the Philippines alone, where after the war American military teams made a special effort to investigate all Japanese massacres, about 90,000 civilians were reported killed (lines 339 and 340).

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

[jberryhill]

61. That wasn't the question, now was it?

The simple answer would be that exterminating every Japanese man, woman and child is the only safeguard against the Japanese continuing what had happened prior to August 1945. There is no question that would be effective.

We preserved the opportunity to fight the Chinese in Korea, and to fight the Vietnamese, with the incident tilt of Cambodia into genocide.

The "oh, but we would have had to fight the Russians" always strikes me as odd, since North Korea and North Vietnam had Russian support. So, we got to fight them by proxy anyway.

[hack89]

63. The killing stopped when the war ended

therefore stopping the war as soon as possible was the moral thing to do - even if it meant using the atomic bombs.

We didn't have to exterminate every Japanese civilian to stop the killing of innocents by the Japanese. History proves that.

[jberryhill]

73. Not in Korea, Vietnam and other power vacuums

Stalin did a pretty good job at mass killing, and we were not above making a deal with him.

You are isolating a point in time absent a larger historical context beyond 1945.

[hack89]

74. So because we can't stop all future killing

we should not stop present killing? Because there is no point to it?

[jberryhill]

78. I'm not the one arguing that it came to an "end"

Mao did a better job killing Chinese than Hirohito did.

If paving the runway for a more effective killer is okay, or if there is some preference to auto-genocidal situations as opposed to hetero-genocidal situations then, by all means, mission accomplished.

[hack89]

86. The killing by the Japanese came to an end.

That is sufficient justification for the bombs. It also stopped the killing in places that did not have subsequent wars.

What are you arguing - that it was morally justified to allow the Japanese to continue to kill hundreds of thousands more because "someone was going to do it anyway."? That ending WWII as soon as possible was not worth it because it wouldn't solve all of the world's future problems? You are an incredibly cynical person.

[jberryhill]

92. Reason #75789 why I love DU

Put words in someone's mouth and then make a character accusation.

Clearly, this means you are a better person than I am.

How fortunate for you.

[hack89]

93. You are the one suggesting that continued Japanese occupation of all those lands

was an ok price for not dropping the bombs. Regardless of the cost in civilian lives. Because they were all going to be killed by someone else after the war. Or something.

[jberryhill]

94. And you are the one

Who apparently cannot hold an extended conversation about a complex topic without reaching for false dichotomies and character attacks.

Goodbye, permanently.

[geek tragedy]

79. Same reason we didn't cut a deal with the Confederates.

Imperial Japan could not be allowed to exist. Japan had to be broken.

[Rex]

11. Conventional land invasion.

nt.

[HardTimes99]

16. I've read estimates that as many as 1 million American soldiers would have died

in a conventional invasion and probably as many or more Japanese soldiers and civilians.

If those projections are correct (and I understand there is some dispute about their legitimacy), was a land invasion still preferable to using atomic weapons?

[Rex]

20. Well the OP says IF Truman refused to use The Bomb.

All I can see left to use would be a conventional land invasion. I don't think a naval blockade or naval barrage would be enough to do it. And yes we would have lost millions and so would the Japanese. Maybe 10 times over if they fought to the very last man.

[HardTimes99]

38. I'm the OP and I hastily posted rather than consider a more nuanced wording. Maybe I should have

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

asked instead, "If Truman didn't want to use atomic weapons . . . ".

BTW, I agree with your assessment of casualty counts and of the Japanese war-fighting mentality. We fire-bombed Tokyo and killed 100,000+ and that was not enough to compel surrender. So I'm not sure what would have compelled surrender in the absence of use of the nuclear weapons.

[Rex]

45. I might get a lecture over my next statement and could be wrong

but the Japanese as a society at the time never knew what surrender meant. They did not take prisoners alive or expect to be taken alive and held as POW. Their entire mentality at that time was to fight to the very last person. The Bomb created an entirely new culture in Japan based on a technocratic society that was keenly aware of how powerful technology is and are the only people on the planet that can say that since they witnessed the ultimate terror of technology - a nuclear bomb.

I don't think Truman had any choice in the matter, especially with the USSR making a hasty advance on Japanese territories. It was a foot race between us and the USSR AND if the USSR had won - I think they would have treated the Japanese horribly.

[Hekate]

116. Good points. They were not ever going to surrender, and Truman knew it.

One of my best Japanese history classes was taught by Professor Akita in the late 1960s, by which time Japan was an economic powerhouse. Among his observations that have stuck with me is this: everything they tried to get by war (except territorial expansion) they ended up getting by peace. But it would not have happened at that point unless the old mindset was broken to bits.

Jeez -- after what the Soviet Union ended up doing to Europe, I really do hate to think what they would have done to Japan had they been the invaders/conquerors.

[Rex]

139. I'm glad we agree on something.

I don't believe in punishing the Japanese for what the army and navy did. I believe the Russians would have thrown them away in a gulag. The Cold War was already hot and Japan was on the map as was Alaska. Mc Auther did what he could to rebuild the country, I think the Russians would have stripped whatever resources they could and be poking ICBMs instead of the other way around with us having military bases.

Truman wanted to end the war fast and occupy Japan and that is that he decided on.

"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything."

Harry S. Truman

[LordGlenconner]

17. Ask the Japanese nicely to "just stop it already."

I'm sure that would have done the trick.

[Gman]

19. Interesting responses given that many responding

Would not even exist today if the never dropped the bombs.

[Orsino]

22. 3) Demonstrate the power of the weapon without killing thousands.

Flatten an island rather than an inhabited city.

I don't know how effective a demonstration like that would have been, but rushing to kill as many people as possible with the first strike doesn't impress me as a very moral choice.

Not that even the threat of such slaughter is a good deed.

[Jenoch]

30. Flattening an island

would likely not have caused the Japanese military to agree to surrender. We flattened a city and they did not agree to a surrender. Also, we had only two bombs and we were not sure either of them would actually work.

[Orsino]

144. Yes. It argues against the idea of flattening things as a panacea. n/t

[HardTimes99]

32. I totally understand your position and point. I don't know enough of the history of the

time to know whether an alternative like yours was ever even considered. In hindsight, I think it should have been, even if a decision ultimately was made to use the bomb on a Japanese city.

[Hekate]

118. I'm sure it was considered, but the Japanese would not have believed it

For reasons I've given elsewhere in this thread. Suffice it to say that the civilians were under news blackout regarding the outside world, the military was in charge of the government, and nobody was quitting.

[stevenleser]

23. We didn't understand it, but half of the Japanese government was looking for a face saving way to

surrender. Read this to understand what I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

Note: This link might be better: http://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/932607094/m/1456019222/r/1456019222

I find this a fascinating aspect of this time period.

[HardTimes99]

36. Thanks for the links. Will try to get to them later today. Half of the Japanese

government (the military) wanted to keep fighting and only Hirohito's personal intervention broke the logjam and allowed the surrender to proceed. (This is my understanding, based on admittedly second- and third-hand sources).

[alan_phillips]

25. Times that try mens souls

None of us were in the position to have to make the decision. It was horrible that all those innocent people suffered and died, but that has been the case in wars throughout history. Wars are started by leaders, fought be soldiers, and paid for by innocent people. hopefully, someday, we will reach a point where we don't fight, where people learn to live with disagreements, and realize that hurting other people is never the right option. If I were in Trumans place, I don't know what I would have done. None of the choices were good, I guess it was a lesser of two evils situation, which is the worst kind.

[sgsmith]

27. What would you rather happen?

1. Drop an atomic weapon on two cities.

2. Invade Kyushu. Take maybe a third of the island.
2a. Build two major airports for B-29s.
2b. Firebomb Honshu 24 hours a day. Reduced loads for the B-29s because the flights from Tinian were overloaded and many aircraft and crew were lost on takeoff.
2c. Repeat 2b until Japan is totally destroyed.
2d. P-51s and P-47s allowed to run loose over all of Japan since the Japanese air force would be annihilated.

I would nearly guarantee that option 2 would have killed more Japanese civilians than the atomic bombs.

[HardTimes99]

33. I think you are correct and your argument is one that opponents of the use of

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

atomic weapons rarely consider, i.e., that a conventional invasion\bombardment risked killing and wounding many more on both sides than atomic weapons ever could.

[sarisataka]

28. Options-

1) Naval and aerial quarantine of Japanese home islands

Death of thousand from starvation and disease through out Japanese home islands. Increasingly desperate suicide attacks kill U.S. and Japanese military. Possible reprisals against civilian populations in Japanese controlled Indochina and Chinese mainland

2) Conventional land invasion.

Six months to a year of intense land combat. Casualties among military and civilians likely to exceed one million

3) Negotiated peace

Japanese military remains in power with absolute control of government. Some conquered territory remains in Japanese hands; Korea and Manchuria most likely, more possible. U.S. civilian morale crashes due to cost of war and failure to complete the defeat of Japan

[HardTimes99]

41. I agree with your analysis. It's why I say that Truman chose the 'least-bad' alternative among

a set of bad choices.

[sarisataka]

50. It is easy to second guess with years of history to look back on

especially from those who have never been responsible for ordering people into likely death. Truman had one of the most difficult choices any President has ever faced.

Also often forgotten, or underestimated, is the deterrent effect the use of the bombs has had ever since. Without the graphic images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and only have cold statistics on the power of the explosions it is very possible nuclear weapons would have been used one, or more times in conflicts after 1945.

[vinny9698]

31. The Second Bomb Was Totally Unnecessary: Translation Error Caused It

After the first bomb, the US asked for surrender. The Japanese were hearing that a single plane had dropped one bomb and the city was gone. The Japanese thought people were exaggerating so they sent officers from Tokyo to check it out. The Japanese responded to the surrender with wait because they wanted to have more time to appraise the situation. Was six days plenty of time for the Japanese to absorb the power of the atom bomb? But the Americans mistook wait for no and so the second bomb was dropped.

[zappaman]

35. Written a VERY strongly worded letter!

[Rex]

47. Bad bad bad!!!

[NuclearDem]

37. I'm no fan of having to have dropped them

But, despite how horrible it was, it sadly was probably the least horrible in terms of human lives lost. All we can do now is make sure we're never in a position to have to do it again.

And don't get me wrong, I would be one happy human being if every nuclear weapon in the world was dismantled, disarmed, and erased from the face of the Earth for good. Little Boy and Fat Man were horrible, certainly, but at least Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabitable now.

[HardTimes99]

42. I'm with you, ND, for the most part. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that

we constantly throw in Iran's face calls, IIRC, for eventual nuclear disarmament by nuclear signatories (of whom we are one).

Personal note: I got my start in political activism during the 'Nuclear Freeze' campaign of Reagan's presidency (simultaneously with CISPES and the campaign against South African apartheid). This discussion and today's anniversary are bringing back some memories from those days.

[Blaspherian]

40. 3.

Dance off

[HardTimes99]

43. Wow! Your flippancy around such a somber anniversary is

indicative of something, I'm just not sure what exactly.

[NuclearDem]

48. Wow, really don't know what to say to that.

But yeah, I guess a vicious bombing and the slow deaths from radiation sickness are something to joke about.

[Blaspherian]

80. Less casualties

in a dance off, my friends.

[distantearlywarning]

44. Explained to them very calmly using "I statements"

that America felt uncomfortable about aspects of the relationship and that it would be important to set some personal boundaries going forward in the future. Then we could have all hugged it out.

[madinmaryland]

51. 3. He would have kept his powder dry.

Oops. I was thinking of Harry Reid.

[LongTomH]

53. What would the American people have done to Truman if he hadn't used the bomb, and.....

1) The war had gone on with either an invasion or a blockade, and
2) The American people had learned that we had a weapon that could end the and hadn't used it?

US and Allied forces had already taken horrible casualties in the Pacific theater of war:

• 6,800 dead and nearly 20,000 wounded at Iwo Jima,
  
• 4,900 sailors and 75,000 ground troops died in the invasion of Okinawa

Those were just US losses, our allies also took heavy losses; Japanese forces defending Okinawa took 94% casualties, along with many civilians.

At this time, the American public had not become inured to long wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan); they were really tired of war and Truman knew that.

Whether the use of nuclear weapons was 'justified' or 'necessary' will be debated for centuries; by people comfortably removed from the circumstances of a long, total war.

It was a terrible decision. I can shed tears for the civilians lost in the bombings, and for the US soldiers, sailors and marines who lost their lives, and for the civilians on the mainland who suffered under Japanese occupation.

[HardTimes99]

102. I find myself also tearing up, although I was born long after the events

in question took place. Suffering on such a scale seems almost unimaginable now to those of us in the developed world.

[BlueCheese]

55. Battle of Okinawa, April 1 to June 22, 1945

It ended up costing 84K US casualties, 105K Japanese casualties, as well as roughly 100K civilian deaths, many by forced suicide.

If it took three months and that much death and suffering on both sides to take a minor outlying island, what would it have cost to invade the Japanese main islands?

[Hekate]

126. This should be considered Exhibit A for this thread.

Thanks.

[elfin]

56. Read Tears in Darkness before answering

Unbelievably well sourced book on Bataan Death March and aftermath. Used interviews with survivors, diaries etc. from BOTH sides.

One of the most amazing books I have ever read.

[Catherina]

58. This is all anyone needs to know

[KurtNYC]

67. The Russians forced his hand by declaring war on Japan Aug 8th

We needed for Japan to surrender to us in order to keep it from the Russians or from being split with the Russians like Germany was.

[sgsmith]

77. Russia was obligated to declare war against Japan

In the Yalta Conference, Russia agreed to declare war against Japan 90 days after the Germans surrendered. The surrender was signed on 7 May, and 90 days later the Russians declared war.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. The Russian did not have any ability to invade Japan.

It takes a navy to invade a country like Japan. WWII for the Russians was a land war. They didn't waste manpower or industrial productivity on a navy. They built planes, tanks, artillery, trains, and trained soldiers and airmen to defeat the Nazis. The Russians did not have the ability to invade Japan. Instead they would have taken Manchuria, Korea, China, and maybe Indochina, which they ended up doing anyway.

[msanthrope]

75. Promised the safety of the Emperor and his family, promised an honorable surrender, and a peaceful

occupation, and immediately entered talks.

Had that failed, bomb. My grandfather, stationed in the Figis during much of the Pacific fight, would not have come home otherwise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. Neither. Blockade them until the Russians invaded or a revolution took down the militarists.

They were done as a threat. They had no navy, no air force, and the army was defeated. The Soviet Union had rolled over them in China and was headed for Korea with nothing to stop them. The bombs were used to scare the Russians and for PR at home.

[HardTimes99]

87. I get where you're coming from and there's a part of me that wants to agree. But (and

it's a big 'But') I think you are over-estimating how 'defeated' the Japanese felt themselves. They had endured the fire-bombing of Tokyo (100,000+ casualties) and had not surrendered after that. Russia was hardly in position to launch a sea-based invasion, having devoted itself to fighting the Nazis on land along a 2,000-mile front.

What you call a 'blockade' is encapsulated in my naval and air quarantine. So I think it was an option HST had, questions of its practicality and political viability notwithstanding.

[hack89]

91. Why is a slow death due to starvation and disease more humane than an atomic bomb?

you would have starved millions and killed off the old, the sick and the young. In greater numbers than who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[leveymg]

82. If there's any good that came out of this, it's that no one dared ever do it again.

2 "live" demonstrations of nuclear weapons was enough, hopefully for all time.

[HardTimes99]

89. I think I remember reading Ellsberg speculating that one reason why Vietnam

dragged on as long as it did was that, after Hiroshima, the U.S. and USSR could only fight wars at the margins or peripheries of their empires, since nuclear war meant all-out destruction.

That's small consolation to the millions of victims in southeast Asia, but I think your assessment is fundamentally sound.

[Faryn Balyncd]

84. Views of Navy Admirals Leahy, Nimitz & Halsey, AF commanding Gen. Hap Arnold, Gen. LeMay....

....Gen. MacArthur, & Gen. Eisenhower:


www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

[DirkGently]

85. What other wars should have been ended with nukes, then?

What is so incredibly unique about the U.S. obtaining instant, unconditional surrender in WWII that made using horrific weapons of mass destruction that caused decades of cancer and birth defects, a necessity, when no one today would suggest a nuke would ever be the best choice?

I do not believe the "million deaths" "house-to-house fighting" story at all. Japan was on its knees. Their naval and air forces were destroyed. Perhaps it would have required time. Perhaps surrender would not have been unconditional. We had won.

Nuclear weapons was not the "only" nor the "best" option. And using two within a short interval is even less defensible.

It was a show of force to the world, and test of nuclear weapons on live human targets for scientific and political gain. Every other war in history was ended in another way, no one believes any other war should ever be ended in such a way.

There simply is no honest way to evaluate the use of nuclear weapons by the United States on Japan without acknowleding that a large, signficant, and perhaps dominating rationale for their use was the desire of the military and political leadership of the United States to demonstrate, specifically to the Soviet Union, that it had functional nuclear weapons, and to test the effects of those weapons on live human targets.

There may have been a military "upside" for the U.S. But it was not the only way. It was not the most humane way, somehow. It was not justified because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor or committed war crimes.

We wanted to use the nukes. We wanted the world to see that the U.S. was, and would be, the predominant military force in the world. There simply is no reasonable question about that motivation, at all.

[HardTimes99]

88. This is an eloquent statement of the counter-argument to my OP and I thank

you for it most sincerely.

Back to the question I posed in my OP (restated slightly to focus it a bit more): were you Truman faced with the situation he faced, what would have been your orders to MacArthur and the military?

[leveymg]

90. I wonder if anyone here would prefer we had dropped them on Hitler's bunker, which was the intention

of many of those who originally designed and built the bomb?

Would that make any difference in your decision on this question?

[hack89]

95. "Perhaps it would have required time" = a lot of pointless deaths

not only in Japan but in all the countries that Japan occupied. Japan killed between 3 and 10 million civilians from 1937 to 1945. Don't you think that ending that slaughter was worth ending the war as quickly as possible?

[HardTimes99]

96. Reading all the responses to my OP, I'm reminded of something Robert E. Lee allegedly

said to James Longstreet as they surveyed advancing Union troops being mowed down in their rank and file from entrenched and fortified Confederate positions at Fredericksburg: "It's a good thing war is so terrible," Lee is said to have remarked, "else we should grow to love it too much."

Your post cuts to the nub of the issue very incisively. Today is full of somber reflection for me.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

120. Hmm. I remember that as being said while he was watching the Confederates march

...during Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, but it looks like you're right: Fredericksburg. At least that's what the Google says. So much for my memory.

[egold2604]

100. Purple Heart Medals used today were made in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese Mainland

The inventory of Purple Heart Medals being awarded today were first made in 1945 in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese Mainland.

http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html

In 2000, for the first time in years, the government ordered a new supply of Purple Hearts. The old supply, manufactured in anticipation of the invasion of the home islands of Japan during World War II, had begun to run low.
The decoration, which goes to American troops wounded in battle and the families of those killed in action, had been only one of countless thousands of supplies produced for the planned 1945 invasion of Japan, which military leaders believed would last until almost 1947.

Fortunately, the invasion never took place. All the other implements of that war -- tanks and LSTs, bullets and K-rations -- have long since been sold, scrapped or used up, but these medals, struck for their grandfathers, are still being pinned on the chests of young soldiers.

The Purple HeartRemarkably, some 120,000 Purple Hearts are still in the hands of the Armed Services and are not only stocked at military supply depots, but also kept with major combat units and at field hospitals so they can be awarded without delay.

They knew that the casualty rate would be very high.

[Th1onein]

101. HOW ABOUT ACCEPTING THEIR TERMS OF SURRENDER?

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Notice how we kept this secret until AFTER the war, and until AFTER we bombed them into oblivion?

A Secret Memorandum

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:
•Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
•Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
•Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
•Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
•Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
•Surrender of designated war criminals.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. Then why did they reject the Potsdam Declaration? N/T

[DCBob]

150. The Potsdam Declaration

From Wikipedia..

On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:

-- the elimination "for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"

-- the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"

-- "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.

-- "The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"

-- "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"

-- "We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."

-- "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."

-- "The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."

-- "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on.

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

==============

Slounds pretty clear and fair to me. They rejected it so they got the alternative -- prompt and utter destruction.

[jberryhill]

103. Imagine if they had not been ready in time or had not worked

How fortunate that they did work, since apparently there was no other way, and nothing to fall back upon if they had failed.

[avebury]

104. I had an Uncle who was captured in the

Philippines, participated in the Bataan Death March, and spent WWII in a Japanese POW camp. Had the war in the Pacific not ended when he did, my Uncle and a lot of his fellow POWs would not have lasted much longer in the camps. He was left with a lot of long term health problems as it is.

I think that Truman made the best decision possible from a selection of bad options. Had we invaded Japan I agree that it probably would have been a blood bath.

[HardTimes99]

129. War is terrible for everyone on both sides (except the mercenaries and war

profiteers) - your uncle's courage and fortitude bear witness to that. I'm sure he had quite a bit of survivor's guilt and PTSD too, although it was never publicly discussed or acknowledged back then.

[avebury]

137. His biggest guilt was watching his best friend die in

the camp. They dealt with dead Americans by cremating them. The Americans would try to get a piece of bone to keep to give to the family. The only time that my Uncle did not work on the cremation detail was when his best friend died. The strangest thing was that, for some reason, the Japanese allowed a bunch of soldiers from Oklahoma to stay together instead of separating them.

[HardTimes99]

141. That is so sad. On one hand, just one more tragedy among many millions

of tragedies. But watching your best friend die young while you are powerless to stop it has to have some special place in tragedy.

[avebury]

149. Another hard incident occurred when the

Japanese divided the POWs (before they left the Phillipines) into groups of 10 and told each member of a group that they were responsible for the other 9. If one of the group took off, the others would be killed. My uncle became aware of 3 men who were planning an escape (from 3 different groups). He ended up alerting the Japanese. As he told my mother, he felt he had no choice because it would have cost the lives of 27 other men. The 3 men were punished but survived. He could not have lived with himself if the 27 prisoners had been killed because of the actions of the other 3.

My aunt kept scapbooks of articles on POWs while my uncle was away. My mother was looking at one of them one time when she and my Dad were visiting them. There was an article from magazine in the scrapbook that contained a sketch of 3 men who were trussed up. My uncle looked over my mother's shoulder at the article and told her that he was involved in that incident and then told her the story in the paragraph above.

[LWolf]

117. Listened to

Eisenhower.

Listened to Admiral Leahy.

Followed their advice.

[roamer65]

125. He would have been impeached and removed from office.

If word got out he had held back on using the atomic bomb and the war would have went on longer, the uproar would have been unprecedented. Talk to any veteran of that war. They wanted it ended by any means possible and ASAP.

[Deep13]

128. Invasion was the only other alternative. nt

[HardTimes99]

132. I think a naval and aerial blockade was another option, although the costs of

doing so (civilian suffering and financial burden on Allies) would have made it impractical and probably politically unsustainable over the long term.

[Niceguy1]

134. both optilns

Would have resukted in more civilian deaths. I would still recommend using the bombs

[Vattel]

138. We should have tried to negotiate a settlement whereby Japan gave up its conquered territories.

Unconditional surrender was a ridiculous demand that guaranteed hundreds of thousands of deaths, many of them innocent bystanders.

[HardTimes99]

140. I'm not enough of an expert in the time or the Japanese imperial mindset. Either in this

thread or one of the others yesterday, someone posted that the entire idea of 'surrender' was entirely foreign to the Japanese warrior class at the time. According to that DUer, the Japanese mindset, as foreign as it may seem to us, was to 'fight to the last man.' If true, it means that negotiated settlements such as you propose would not have been possible.

Opposed to that, I've seen and read credible reports here that various high-level efforts were being made by the Japanese in the months before Hiroshima to negotiate a peace but on terms that would have allowed Japanese rearmament and no occupation of Japanese lands, i.e., unacceptable terms.

Still, every peace negotiation must begin somewhere, even if neither side's opening position is acceptable to the other side. Given that the final surrender terms allowed Hirohito to remain Emperor, how 'unconditional' were our demands when all is said and done? Seems to me like 'unconditional' is a rhetorical stance, not a negotiating position.

[PowerToThePeople]

142. this?

a little bit a little bit not

[JPZenger]

143. He should have given the Japanese more time to respond to the 1st one, before he used the second

I also wish he could have chosen more of a military target, as opposed to the center of major cities.

[HardTimes99]

151. I read in one of the threads here that the Japanese asked for more time time

while they tried to assess the consequences of Hiroshima. That 'wait' somehow got translated as 'no' (not sure if this occurred literally or only metaphorically) and the result was that Truman and the Allied Command felt they had to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki so shortly thereafter.

If so, that is truly a tragic misunderstanding.

[hack89]

153. Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance

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.

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

[larkrake]

152. the war was virtually over at that time

The bombs were dropped to strike fear into the hearts of the world, to prove the US is reckless and homicidal.There is no excuse for mass killing of civilians when the military made the decisions to strike Pearl Harbor. Anyone who thinks war is the answer is pathological.Using the bombs was just insane and wrong.