Untold History of the United States

[Jason]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

Wrong. The second bombing demonstrated that we had more than one. It gave Gen. Aranami the horrible thought that Tokyo could be the target of the third bomb and caused him to switch from hardline no-surrender to "well, we gave it our best shot."

[Jason]

You could have demonstrated that you had a second one without killing civilians. Perhaps killing a lot of fish instead.

But then that'd give those slant eyed bastards the idea that you couldn't hit a target.. hmm.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You could have demonstrated that you had a second one without killing civilians. Perhaps killing a lot of fish instead.

Prince Oknokoni: Gen. Aranami, I just saw a huge bomb go off!

Gen. Aranami: How interesting.

Prince Oknokoni: Seriously, it was HUGE!

Gen. Aranami: More tea, Prince?

But then that'd give those slant eyed bastards the idea that you couldn't hit a target.. hmm.

Nice, play the race card early.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, headquarters for their prefects. The atomic bombs were big bombs, we knew next to nothing about the effects of radiation then. We had people in both cities days after the surrender. We also planned to use up to eight in the invasions, with troops going through ground zero about thirty minutes after they were dropped.

[Jason]

Nice, play the race card early.

I'm not implying you're racist, I'm pointing out that the propaganda of the day inspired a deep racial hatred of the enemy (something common to all sides).

[Coito ergo sum]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

Wrong. The second bombing demonstrated that we had more than one. It gave Gen. Aranami the horrible thought that Tokyo could be the target of the third bomb and caused him to switch from hardline no-surrender to "well, we gave it our best shot."

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have
used it against those who attacked us without
warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have
starved and beaten and executed American prisoners
of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense
of obeying international laws of warfare. We have
used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in
order to save the lives of thousands and thousands
of young Americans. We will continue to use it
until we completely destroy Japan's power to make
war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." - Harry S Truman.

The myth that Japan was already giving up is persistent, and for some reason people looking back on 1945 want to believe that. After all, we had taken Iwo Jima - we had taken even Okinawa. All that Japan had left was Honshu. So, why would Japan keep fighting? Well, they had about 2,000,000 soldiers and all their civilians ready to fight against an American invasion. What they figured they would get is a peace accord that left their country and government intact. What needed to happen, though, was unconditional surrender. There was no "peace negotiation" to be had -- it was, as I noted, an existential crisis. If the Axis won, the US and the UK would cease to be. The Axis lost, though, so Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ceased to be (except that the so-called Emperor was allowed to remain as a puppet - which is a shame).

[Jason]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

Wrong. The second bombing demonstrated that we had more than one. It gave Gen. Aranami the horrible thought that Tokyo could be the target of the third bomb and caused him to switch from hardline no-surrender to "well, we gave it our best shot."

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have
used it against those who attacked us without
warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have
starved and beaten and executed American prisoners
of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense
of obeying international laws of warfare. We have
used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in
order to save the lives of thousands and thousands
of young Americans. We will continue to use it
until we completely destroy Japan's power to make
war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." - Harry S Truman.

The myth that Japan was already giving up is persistent, and for some reason people looking back on 1945 want to believe that. After all, we had taken Iwo Jima - we had taken even Okinawa. All that Japan had left was Honshu. So, why would Japan keep fighting? Well, they had about 2,000,000 soldiers and all their civilians ready to fight against an American invasion. What they figured they would get is a peace accord that left their country and government intact. What needed to happen, though, was unconditional surrender. There was no "peace negotiation" to be had -- it was, as I noted, an existential crisis. If the Axis won, the US and the UK would cease to be. The Axis lost, though, so Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ceased to be (except that the so-called Emperor was allowed to remain as a puppet - which is a shame).

I fail to see your line of defense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see you failed to see mine.

[Coito ergo sum]

You could have demonstrated that you had a second one without killing civilians. Perhaps killing a lot of fish instead.

But then that'd give those slant eyed bastards the idea that you couldn't hit a target.. hmm.

That was a different media age. What were we going to do? Drop one on the Bikini Atoll and then send them a 35mm reel-to-reel film of the event?

"Here, abandon your country and surrender unconditionally based on this movie we made..."

[Coito ergo sum]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

Wrong. The second bombing demonstrated that we had more than one. It gave Gen. Aranami the horrible thought that Tokyo could be the target of the third bomb and caused him to switch from hardline no-surrender to "well, we gave it our best shot."

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have
used it against those who attacked us without
warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have
starved and beaten and executed American prisoners
of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense
of obeying international laws of warfare. We have
used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in
order to save the lives of thousands and thousands
of young Americans. We will continue to use it
until we completely destroy Japan's power to make
war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." - Harry S Truman.

The myth that Japan was already giving up is persistent, and for some reason people looking back on 1945 want to believe that. After all, we had taken Iwo Jima - we had taken even Okinawa. All that Japan had left was Honshu. So, why would Japan keep fighting? Well, they had about 2,000,000 soldiers and all their civilians ready to fight against an American invasion. What they figured they would get is a peace accord that left their country and government intact. What needed to happen, though, was unconditional surrender. There was no "peace negotiation" to be had -- it was, as I noted, an existential crisis. If the Axis won, the US and the UK would cease to be. The Axis lost, though, so Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ceased to be (except that the so-called Emperor was allowed to remain as a puppet - which is a shame).

I fail to see your line of defense.

Coupled with my previous posts, it should be obvious. What is it that you're not understanding? The war wasn't over. Japan wasn't surrendering or about to give up. They were prepared to defend against a conventional war to the tune of 2,000,000 men, and if we were going to defeat them we'd have to land a million man army ourselves, firebomb all their cities, and go cave to cave, hole to hole, flamethrowing everything that moves. The atomic bombs saved lives as well as ended the war quicker than a ground invasion.

[Jason]

But you just suggested that Japan was playing for peace, but that could not be allowed because their country and government would still be intact. Therefore, bombs.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But you just suggested that Japan was playing for peace, but that could not be allowed because their country and government would still be intact. Therefore, bombs.

Japan wanted peace on its own terms, meaning they got to keep most of what they wanted from the war in the first place. Their ambassador in Switzerland kept telegraphing for instructions, a position, talking points, anything. They ignored his requests.

[Coito ergo sum]

But you just suggested that Japan was playing for peace, but that could not be allowed because their country and government would still be intact. Therefore, bombs.

Well, one, I never suggested that. They were willing to keep fighting unless they got what they wanted. They weren't suing for peace.

Also, even were they offering some form of peace deal, which they didn't, just because a country is willing to stop shooting on some terms acceptable tot hem doesn't mean that those terms make sense. What good would leaving Imperial Japan intact do? The war needed to end, once and for all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

C.E.S., if you read the papers of the time you'd see that the Republicans were sort of holding off of FDR because he'd died, but HST was fair game.

[Coito ergo sum]

C.E.S., if you read the papers of the time you'd see that the Republicans were sort of holding off of FDR because he'd died, but HST was fair game.

Well, politics doesn't stop during wartime -- it didn't during the Civil War, so I wouldn't expect it to in WW2. But, WW2 was, relatively speaking, a galvanizing time - to the extent that any time can be said to be that.

I don't think Harry S dropped the bomb because he was concerned about Republican reaction. I think he dropped the bomb because he, like most Americans at the time, Republican, Democrat, or other, were going to do whatever it took to win that war. It was no great moral hand-wringing episode, is what I'm trying to say -- it was us or them. Surrender, or die, their choice. It was that kind of war. IMO.

It wasn't a bloodlust or thirst for avaricious vengeance - it was, I think, what most of us would think in 1945, if we had just lived through the first 1/2 of the 1940s, gas and food rations, rubber and metal shortages, friends and family members dying and maimed, in the context of an unprovoked attack, against two great nations founded on racial superiority and totalitarianism, who were hell bent on destroying us and our way of life -- I know that knowing what I know of history, I would not take too long to decide to drop those bombs. It seems like a no brainer to me, and actually the least murderous way to end the war.