♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 28, 2011 3:39:04 GMT
I challenge the "belief" that some people hold that the atomic bomb was the reason the Japanese surrendered in WW2! The Russian declaration of war and Russian troops overrunning Japanese held Manchuria, which is roughly 5 times bigger than Texas as well as conquering Sakhalin island and treatening to invade the Northern part of mainland Japan made it clear to Emperor Hirohito that he had to end the war to preserve his position as emperor!
Attempts to terrorize civilians into submission, e.g. bin Laden's 911 inferno, Churchill's phosphorus bombs or Hitler's rockets never succeeded in terrorizing civilians into appeasing the author of the terrorist attack. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were likewise just terrorist attacks!en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito QUOTE: On August 9, 1945, following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war, Emperor Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us."[30] On August 10, the cabinet drafted an "Imperial Rescript ending the War" following the Emperor's indications that the declaration did not compromise any demand which prejudiced the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Mar 28, 2011 9:58:24 GMT
A new scenario indeed. I have spent 60+ years convinced that it was the atomic bomb. It seems to have been a combination of both.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 28, 2011 11:50:49 GMT
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 28, 2011 13:05:17 GMT
It seems generally accepted by all (well, very nearly all) historians, that the use of the entirely new and devastating atomic weapon was the one thing that brought the Japanese to the surrender table .Hirohito, contrary to some views, was not the main power in Japan; rather a remote figurehead, and God like entity, worshipped from afar by the Japanese peoples. The real power lay with the military, to whom surrender was anathema. They had already seen their cities virtually destroyed by mass incendiary raids, and American bombers were ranging almost unopposed over Japanese skies. In spite of this, they still believed that it was possible to fight on, and make the Americans pay an unacceptable price in invading the mainland. They had already shown what Kamikaze attacks could do to warships at Okinawa, but all that changed when the Atomic bomb was successfully tested, and it was realised what a potent weapon the Yanks had at their disposal. The American military planners had already calculated that their probably casualty figures for an invasion of Japan would run into the millions; which was one of the main reasons why Harry Truman was persuaded to sanction its use. Even then, they had to drop TWO bombs, and obliterate two cities, before the Japanese accepted that surrender was the only option open to them. No. I don't think that Russia coming onto the scene was the defining moment in their history. It was the realisation that here was a weapon like no other, against which there was no defence, that drove them to realise that their ONLY option was surrender. To suggest otherwise is to try and re-write history.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 28, 2011 13:16:12 GMT
It seems generally accepted by all (well, very nearly all) historians, that the use of the entirely new and devastating atomic weapon was the one thing that brought the Japanese to the surrender table .Hirohito, contrary to some views, was not the main power in Japan; rather a remote figurehead, and God like entity, worshipped from afar by the Japanese peoples. The real power lay with the military, to whom surrender was anathema. They had already seen their cities virtually destroyed by mass incendiary raids, and American bombers were ranging almost unopposed over Japanese skies. In spite of this, they still believed that it was possible to fight on, and make the Americans pay an unacceptable price in invading the mainland. They had already shown what Kamikaze attacks could do to warships at Okinawa, but all that changed when the Atomic bomb was successfully tested, and it was realised what a potent weapon the Yanks had at their disposal. The American military planners had already calculated that their probably casualty figures for an invasion of Japan would run into the millions; which was one of the main reasons why Harry Truman was persuaded to sanction its use. Even then, they had to drop TWO bombs, and obliterate two cities, before the Japanese accepted that surrender was the only option open to them. No. I don't think that Russia coming onto the scene was the defining moment in their history. It was the realisation that here was a weapon like no other, against which there was no defence, that drove them to realise that their ONLY option was surrender. To suggest otherwise is to try and re-write history. Invading Japan would have been unneccesary, if the Japanese were cut off from any means to get sufficient fossil fuel. It was obvious that the Japanese troops in Manchuria couldn't ward off the onslaught of the attacking Russian Red Army, which was planning to invade Japan months before the US was.
With the fuel shortage the Japanese wouldn't have been able to fly planes, fuel supply trucks, run the factories, etc. and would have ended up with a medieval infrastructure.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 28, 2011 13:20:59 GMT
I simply don't believe that terrorizing civilians is an effective strategy in winning wars! Terrorism doesn't work!www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm QUOTE: Hiroshima After Sixty Years: The Debate Continuesby Gar Alperovitz This weekend marks the 60th anniversary of the August 6, 1945 bombing of Hiroshima. One might think that by now historians would agree on all the fundamental issues. The reality, however, is just the opposite: All the major issues involved in the decision are still very much a matter of dispute among experts. An obvious question is why this should be so after so many years. Did the atomic bomb, in fact, cause Japan to surrender? Most Americans think the answer is self-evident. However, many historical studies�including new publications by two highly regarded scholars--challenge the conventional understanding. In a recently released Harvard University Press volume drawing upon the latest Japanese sources, for instance, Professor Tsuyohsi Hasegawa concludes that the traditional �myth cannot be supported by historical facts.� By far the most important factor forcing the decision, his research indicates, was the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on August 8, 1945, just after the Hiroshima bombing. Similarly, Professor Herbert Bix�whose biography of Hirohito won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction�also writes in a recent article that �the Soviet factor carried greater weight in the eyes of the emperor and most military leaders.� Many Japanese historians have long judged the Soviet declaration of war to have been the straw that broke the camels back�mainly because the Japanese military feared the Red Army more than the loss of another city by aerial bombardment. (They had already shown themselves willing to sacrifice many, many cities to conventional bombing!) An intimately related question is whether the bomb was in any event still necessary to force a surrender before an invasion. Again, most Americans believe the answer obvious�as, of course, do many historians. However, a very substantial number also disagree with this view. One of the most respected, Stanford University Professor Barton Bernstein, judges that all things considered it seems �quite probable�indeed, far more likely than not�that Japan would have surrendered before November� (when the first landing in Japan was scheduled.) Many years ago Harvard historian Ernest R. May also concluded that the surrender decision probably resulted from the Russian attack, and that �it could not in any event been long in coming.� In his new book Hasegawa goes further: �[T]here were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman Administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue.� (On the other hand, one recent writer, Richard Frank, argues Japan was still so militarily powerful the U.S. would ultimately have decided not to invade. He justifies the bombing not only of Hiroshima but of Nagasaki as well. Japanese historian Sadao Asada believes that �there was a possibility Japan would not have surrendered by November� on the basis of the Russian attack alone.) What did the U.S. military think? Here there is also dispute. We actually know very little about the views of the military at the time. However, after the war many�indeed, most�of the top World War II Generals and Admirals involved criticized the decision. One of the most famous was General Eisenhower, who repeatedly stated that he urged the bomb not be used: � t wasn�t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.� The well-known �hawk,� General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman�s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The �use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.�
Some historians believe such statements may have been made partly to justify postwar funding requests by the various military services. Several years after the war General George C. Marshall did state publicly that he believed the bombings were necessary. On the other hand, long before the atomic bomb was used Leahy�s diary shows he judged the war could be ended. And Marshall is on record months before Hiroshima as suggesting that �these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that... we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers....�
Why was the bomb used? The conventional view, of course, is that it was to save as many lives as possible. But if this is so, several historians now ask, why did President Truman and his chief adviser Secretary of State James Byrnes make it harder for Japan to surrender? Specifically, why did they remove assurances for the Japanese emperor from the July 1945 Potsdam Proclamation warning Japan to surrender? The assurances were strongly recommended by U.S. and British military leaders, and removing them, they knew, would make it all but impossible for Japan to end the war.
A traditional theory has been that the President feared political criticism if he provided assurances to the emperor. But, other historians note, leading Republicans were for�not against�clarifying the terms to achieve a surrender, and were calling for this publicly. Moreover, American leaders always knew the emperor would be needed to order a surrender�and, of course, in the end they did agree to an understanding which allowed such assurances: Japan still has an emperor.
Hasegawa believes the assurances were taken out of the Potsdam Proclamation precisely because American leaders wanted to have the warning rejected so as to justify the bombing�and, further, that they saw the bomb as a way to end the war before Russia could join the fighting. There is other evidence suggesting that policy makers, especially Secretary of State Byrnes, wanted to use the bomb to �make the Russians more manageable in Europe�--as he told one scientist.
(Full disclosure: My own view�as one of the historians involved in the debate--is that the bombings were unnecessary and that American policy makers were advised at the time that a combination of assurances for the emperor plus the forthcoming Russian declaration of war would likely bring about surrender in the three months available before the invasion could begin. I also believe the evidence is strong, but not conclusive, that American leaders saw the bomb above all as a way to impress the Russians and also as a way to end the war before the Red Army got very far into Manchuria.)
Why are historians still struggling over these issues? One reason is that few nations find it easy to come to terms with questionable actions in their past. Nor is this a simple left-right debate. In recent years liberals have been critical of the decision. At the time The Nation magazine defended the bombing while many conservative publications criticized it�including Human Events, and later, the National Review. �The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul," former President Herbert Hoover wrote to a friend.
One of the most important reasons the issues don�t seem to get resolved has to do with the historical record. The fact is most discussions concerning the decision to use the atomic bomb were simply not recorded. Not only were such matters handled in an extremely secretive manner, they were largely handled outside the normal chain of command. There is also evidence of the manipulation of some documents and of missing documents in certain cases�and in some instances, evidence that documents were destroyed.
Perhaps one day we will know more and the long debate over Hiroshima will come to an end. We are unlikely, I think, to discover new official sources. However, a new generation of scholars may well be able to ferret out diaries, letters, or additional personal papers in the attics or basements of descendants of some of the men involved. An even more interesting possibility is that the President�s daughter Margaret will one day donate additional papers to the Truman Library. (In her own writing Margaret reports details which seem clearly to be based on documentary sources. However, she has so far refused to respond to inquiries from historians asking for access to these.) A third possibility is that if, as some believe, the Soviets bugged the Truman villa near Potsdam, Germany (or the villas of other American or British officials who were there for the July 1945 meetings just before the bombings), there may be tapes or transcriptions of some key conversations in NKVD or other files in the Russian archives.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 15:48:33 GMT
An intimately related question is whether the bomb was in any event still necessary to force a surrender before an invasion. Again, most Americans believe the answer obvious�as, of course, do many historians. However, a very substantial number also disagree with this view. One of the most respected, Stanford University Professor Barton Bernstein, judges that all things considered it seems �quite probable�indeed, far more likely than not�that Japan would have surrendered before November� (when the first landing in Japan was scheduled.)
Many years ago Harvard historian Ernest R. May also concluded that the surrender decision probably resulted from the Russian attack, and that �it could not in any event been long in coming.� In his new book Hasegawa goes further: �[T]here were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman Administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue.�
Read more: biglinmarshall.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2401&page=1#ixzz1HuRnPYI4This certainly is not new. A level history students were aware of this theory as long ago as 1989 - I can remember the year because I remember discussing it with two sixth formers on work experience at an office I worked in only briefly.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Mar 28, 2011 17:12:56 GMT
We may never know, though it is interesting how many seemingly develop twenty/twenty vision in hindsight. But I do wonder if it was the real historical, human and pictorial evidence of what an atomic bomb could do (in addition to the concept of MAD) that was a factor in the A or H bomb never being used in those dangerous cold war years of the 50s, 60s etc.
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 28, 2011 19:43:36 GMT
Im not sure that you could ever say. How would you know?
|
|
|
Post by gg on May 30, 2011 14:37:06 GMT
The signing of the " Instrument of Surrender" ended WWII in September
Nagasaki was bombed in August so it couldn't have ended the war
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 30, 2011 21:13:23 GMT
Great to see you again, GG!
I guess my take would be that it didn't end the war but it may have hastened it.
My grandad was serving in Malaya at the time with the British Army and he reckons it gave the Japanese an excuse to save face by surrendering and that otherwise thousands of people would have died.
I don't know; what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on May 31, 2011 0:00:46 GMT
Whether you credit Nagasaki or the Russians, it was clear to the Japanese high command that they were going to lose the war.
America was unlike any other conquerer in history. The Romans took slaves from the population and the soldiers raped the young girls. The Romans set the pattern for most military conquests.
The Japanese people were treated with respect. Their economy flourished. The people are most likely leading much richer lives today than would have been the case had their miltary prevaild. They lucked out by losing the war. Ditto for Germany.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2011 1:33:08 GMT
Whether you credit Nagasaki or the Russians, it was clear to the Japanese high command that they were going to lose the war. America was unlike any other conquerer in history. The Romans took slaves from the population and the soldiers raped the young girls. The Romans set the pattern for most military conquests. The Japanese people were treated with respect. Their economy flourished. The people are most likely leading much richer lives today than would have been the case had their miltary prevaild. They lucked out by losing the war. Ditto for Germany. Dearest Das, Of course the Japanese were losing the war! A new military enemy ( Russia ) opening up a new front in the war and conquering Manchuria made more of an impression to the Japanese military leaders then an atomic mass killing of civilians. Terrorist attacks encourage counter terrorist attacks and not peace!
With your logic the victory of the dictatorial military state Sparta over democratic Athens in the Peloponnesian War ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War ) should have altered history for the worse.
Victorious military dictators like Mao, Stalin, Franco and others have vanished just like the defeated axis dictators. The spirit of the times ( Zeitgeist ) determines the course of history and not warmongering.
|
|
|
Post by gg on May 31, 2011 1:54:34 GMT
Great to see you again, GG! I guess my take would be that it didn't end the war but it may have hastened it. My grandad was serving in Malaya at the time with the British Army and he reckons it gave the Japanese an excuse to save face by surrendering and that otherwise thousands of people would have died. I don't know; what do you think? thanks Lin- no doubt in my mind that the two bombs hastened things considerably. When someone has something you can't combat--it's time to quit It let my dad come home from Burma where he was stationed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2011 6:55:07 GMT
My Dad was in Burma too, in the Royal Corps of Signals.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jun 1, 2011 13:50:27 GMT
Hi Anna....long time, no post with.
I'm not much of a believer in "coincidences".
Aug 6th we dropped the first nuke on Hiroshima.. After THAT one, Emperor Hirohito was heard to say to his military chiefs.. "do what you must do".....which was misunderstood, so, they refused to surrender. Three days later, the 9th, the second bomb, more powerful than the first was dropped on Nagasaki, Between the two, 80,000 died. The 12th, three days later, Hirohito gave a radio address in which he announced the surrender.
Japan's military position was totally untenable when the FIRST bomb was dropped...but that was "future-stuff"...
The nuclear bombs were "here & now".
No comparison to fire bombings.....they represented total destruction of Hirohito's people.
At this point, the last thing on the Emperor's mind was oil or where Russia was.
No doubt in my mind, the two nuclear bombs decisivly were the reasons for Hirohito's surrender...3 days later.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 1, 2011 19:02:44 GMT
Welcome back ArizonaVet! The atomic bomb was used almost exclusively to target civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and was thus a terrorist attack! Saying that using the atomic bomb against civilians ended the war is saying essentially that "Terrorism works!" Something I'm not willing to agree to! Killing civilians only motivates retaliation!
True Japan was militarily in a hopeless position and Hirohito was looking for a way to end the war. In Hirohito's discussions with military leaders his main argument for surrender was Russia's declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria after the atomic bombings-and not the atomic bomb!
Japan was totally defeated-true! Had the atomic bomb been developed by the US at the peak of Japan's power I believe Japan would have found a treacherous "Rosenberg" to help them build the atomic bomb and retaliate and WW2 would have become an atomic holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by gg on Jun 2, 2011 14:26:09 GMT
Welcome back ArizonaVet! The atomic bomb was used almost exclusively to target civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and was thus a terrorist attack! Saying that using the atomic bomb against civilians ended the war is saying essentially that "Terrorism works!" Something I'm not willing to agree to! Killing civilians only motivates retaliation!
True Japan was militarily in a hopeless position and Hirohito was looking for a way to end the war. In Hirohito's discussions with military leaders his main argument for surrender was Russia's declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria after the atomic bombings-and not the atomic bomb!
Japan was totally defeated-true! Had the atomic bomb been developped by the US at the peak of Japan's power I believe Japan would have found a treacherous "Rosenberg" to help them build the atomic bomb and retaliate and WW2 would have become an atomic holocaust. That's the biggest bunch of propaganda garbage against the U S I have heard in awhile. When war has been declared there can't be terrorism regardless of who you bomb. The terrorism came when they bombed Pearl before there was a declaration of war. Perhaps you would like to change countries since you are a U S apologist like we have in the white house.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 3, 2011 2:07:04 GMT
Welcome back ArizonaVet! The atomic bomb was used almost exclusively to target civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and was thus a terrorist attack! Saying that using the atomic bomb against civilians ended the war is saying essentially that "Terrorism works!" Something I'm not willing to agree to! Killing civilians only motivates retaliation!
True Japan was militarily in a hopeless position and Hirohito was looking for a way to end the war. In Hirohito's discussions with military leaders his main argument for surrender was Russia's declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria after the atomic bombings-and not the atomic bomb!
Japan was totally defeated-true! Had the atomic bomb been developped by the US at the peak of Japan's power I believe Japan would have found a treacherous "Rosenberg" to help them build the atomic bomb and retaliate and WW2 would have become an atomic holocaust. That's the biggest bunch of propaganda garbage against the U S I have heard in awhile. When war has been declared there can't be terrorism regardless of who you bomb. The terrorism came when they bombed Pearl before there was a declaration of war. Perhaps you would like to change countries since you are a U S apologist like we have in the white house. Dearest GG! I define terrorism among other things as the mass killing of noncombattant civilians. Anti-US propoganda? Would you describe the massacre at "Wounded Knee" as anti-US propoganda too?
The main trust of this debate is whether or not terrorism works! Perhaps bin Laden believed using the atomic bomb on civilians won the war too! I disagree!!
In Germany there was a sizable resistance to Hitler too, but the fire bombing of civilians disrupted this. Those who lost non combattant family members to the intentional civilian bombings often became embittered and no longer supportive of the resistance and even betrayed it. Not because they supported or liked Hitler, but because in their embittered state of mind they began to fight a "private war" against the powers they held responsible for killing their loved one( s ).
By the same token Hitler's rocket attacks on London killed primarily noncombattant civilians and only made the British more supportive of the war effort!
Is their any factions of Americans that want to negotiate peace with the Al Qaida dirt bags after 911?
Terrorism, by whoever against whoever, doesn't work!
|
|
|
Post by toby on Jun 3, 2011 16:26:07 GMT
anna posted.:-Terrorism, by whoever against whoever, doesn't work!
Toby comments.:- I does work though ! Look at IRA members sitting in the House of Commons.
The IRA came out victorious after their Terror Campaign !
What you should have said is that Terror does not work when you have an implacable opponent !
|
|