A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[vegas giants]

Um, no, I wouldn't... but I try and subscribe to the Churchill philosophy of fighting them on the beaches. Not the Halifax philosophy of trying to make deals with the devil.

Ok ranger

 

[Robertinfremont]

Thank you for your scholarly post. LOL

You are welcome. :roll:

 

[swing_voter]

When the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, the Canadian government was eager to claim a share of the responsibility.

"It is a particular pleasure for me to announce that Canadian scientists and Canadian institutions have played an intimate part and have been associated in an effective way with this great scientific development," Munitions Minister C. D. Howe boasted in a public statement.


Canada's role - The Globe and Mail




Canada and Britain pitched in on the Manhattan Project, of course.

A Canadian scientist was one of the first people to die of radiation at Los Alamos in New Mexico. He opened the door on a reactor too soon.

 

[vegas giants]

You are welcome. :roll:

okay dokey pokey

 

[Cordelier]

Ok ranger

There's a time for talking and there's a time for shooting. It never profits anyone when they get the two mixed up.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Many say hostilities would have resumed if the emperor was tried. He was a god to them

Untrue.

"With regard to the Emperor system, it is the opinion of observers especially as far as the middle classes are concerned that the Allies are unduly apprehensive of the effect on the Japanese if the Emperor were removed. It is claimed that at most there might be demonstrations, particularly in rural districts, but they would soon pass. People are more concerned with food and housing problems than with the fate of the Emperor." -Embracing Defeat, by John Dover.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Why would anyone believe such a concession a month earlier, when the militarists had more authority and the pressure was far less Jwhy it would have made a difference? And, in fact, the final acceptance of terms still contained a caveat that required the emperor's ultimate authority over the state remain - neatly ignored in the US reply by making him subject to the authority of the US...

Actually, the most meaningful result of the end of the power of Japan was in January 1946. That was when Emperor Showa gave the "Humanity Declaration".

The ties between Us and Our people have always stood upon mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends and myths. They are not predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine, and that the Japanese people are superior to other races and fated to rule the world.

This was his refuting that he was Arahitogami (a Divine being descended from the deity Arahitokami), and that not only was Japan not a "Divine Empire", but that not only he but all of his people were humans, just like any other humans.

This was the end of the era of Imperial Sovereign, and the start of the era where he became a symbol for the State, and of unity for his people.

After that, he was largely left alone. He in essence abdicated most of his powers, as they were divine in nature as being a direct line descendent of Amaterasu through Emperor Jimmu, first Emperor of Japan and the founder of a single dynasty that ruled over Japan for over 2,600 years.

To put that in perspective, during Emperor Jimmu's reign Babylon first rose up against the Assyrians. The oldest known copies of Gilgamesh were etched into wet clay. Manasseh of Judea was the 14th King of that land, and his history is later recorded in the Old Testament when the prophet Jeremiah preaches to him about his evils. Necho II led the Egyptian Army into battle at a hill fortress called Megiddo, which is where the destruction would form the word we now know as "Armageddon". The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were started. The Etruscans capture the small settlement known as Rome. Babylon captures Jerusalem, and starts the Exile of the Jews into Babylon. Sappho, Aesop, and Zoroaster were born.

This should give an idea why this Emperor had so much power over his people. This entire listing of history I gave happened during the reign of the founder of Japan. And the Founder of the Imperial House of Japan, a single dynasty that has ruled unbroken since 660 BCE. And still continues to rule to this day, something that will never be matched.

 

[vegas giants]

Untrue.

"With regard to the Emperor system, it is the opinion of observers especially as far as the middle classes are concerned that the Allies are unduly apprehensive of the effect on the Japanese if the Emperor were removed. It is claimed that at most there might be demonstrations, particularly in rural districts, but they would soon pass. People are more concerned with food and housing problems than with the fate of the Emperor." -Embracing Defeat, by John Dover.

Opinion noted

 

[maxparrish]

Check




the




thread




Dont be so lazy. I dont have to post it ten times. Where is your evidence for anything?

LOL...so you demand "references" from me but can't cite the post were you say your evidence exists cause 'its somewhere in 246 posts' which I am supposed to read to "discover" if you have something?

You'll have to do better than that.

In the meantime while you dig up your cite, here is how an actual reference works:

1. "The figure of 900,000 is from Drea, MacArthur’s Ultra, 222."
Maddox, Robert James. Weapons for Victory (p. 185). University of Missouri Press.

2. "Pending the discovery of new material, there is no reliable evidence that any high-ranking officer expressed moral objections about the bomb to Truman or gave him reason to believe that the military situation had changed appreciably—except that Japanese defenses were daily growing more formidable—since he had approved the Kyushu operation during his meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 18. On July 24 he and Churchill had met with the Combined Chiefs of Staff to review and approve final invasion plans. Nothing said there or in the chiefs’ report suggested any need for revision.53" (Ibid, page 124).

3. "Both of the top commanders in the Pacific supported the invasion of Japan’s home islands, and neither at the time expressed any reservations about using atomic bombs. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief, Pacific Ocean Area, learned of the planned operations months earlier because the special bombing group would operate from within his jurisdiction. According to the courier who delivered Admiral King’s letter stating that the first bomb was expected to be available in August, Nimitz read it and then said, “This sounds fine, but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?” Far from opposing use of the bombs, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki he favored using a third on Tokyo.50.

4. "Spaatz talked with him (McCarthur) on August 1. Spaatz later told General Handy that he conveyed the message and “that’s all I did.” MacArthur thereupon responded with an hour-long lecture on the future of atomic warfare, not with any criticism of existing plans. He continued to urge that preparations for the invasion go forward even after the first bomb was dropped.52"

Maddox, Robert James. Weapons for Victory (p. 124). University of Missouri Press.


Now please provide you cited "post" that proves a dozen opposed the use of the bomb before it was dropped. Quit dodging or retract your nonsense.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Opinion noted

There was plenty of evidence to show that the Emperor's veneration among the Japanese people there was nothing really to suggest that the Japanese would revolt if the Emperor had been tried. If you have solid evidence to the contrary, please present it.

 

[vegas giants]

LOL...so you demand "references" from me but can't cite the post were you say your evidence exists cause 'its somewhere in 246 posts' which I am supposed to read to "discover" if you have something?

You'll have to do better than that.

In the meantime while you dig up your cite, here is how an actual reference works:

1. "The figure of 900,000 is from Drea, MacArthur’s Ultra, 222."
Maddox, Robert James. Weapons for Victory (p. 185). University of Missouri Press.

2. "Pending the discovery of new material, there is no reliable evidence that any high-ranking officer expressed moral objections about the bomb to Truman or gave him reason to believe that the military situation had changed appreciably—except that Japanese defenses were daily growing more formidable—since he had approved the Kyushu operation during his meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 18. On July 24 he and Churchill had met with the Combined Chiefs of Staff to review and approve final invasion plans. Nothing said there or in the chiefs’ report suggested any need for revision.53" (Ibid, page 124).

3. "Both of the top commanders in the Pacific supported the invasion of Japan’s home islands, and neither at the time expressed any reservations about using atomic bombs. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief, Pacific Ocean Area, learned of the planned operations months earlier because the special bombing group would operate from within his jurisdiction. According to the courier who delivered Admiral King’s letter stating that the first bomb was expected to be available in August, Nimitz read it and then said, “This sounds fine, but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?” Far from opposing use of the bombs, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki he favored using a third on Tokyo.50.

4. "Spaatz talked with him (McCarthur) on August 1. Spaatz later told General Handy that he conveyed the message and “that’s all I did.” MacArthur thereupon responded with an hour-long lecture on the future of atomic warfare, not with any criticism of existing plans. He continued to urge that preparations for the invasion go forward even after the first bomb was dropped.52"

Maddox, Robert James. Weapons for Victory (p. 124). University of Missouri Press.


Now please provide you cited "post" that proves a dozen opposed the use of the bomb before it was dropped. Quit dodging or retract your nonsense.

No dude. A reference has a link.



Try again

 

[vegas giants]

There was plenty of evidence to show that the Emperor's veneration among the Japanese people there was nothing really to suggest that the Japanese would revolt if the Emperor had been tried. If you have solid evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Show your plenty of evidence then

 

[swing_voter]

When Truman told Stalin that America had the bomb, Stalin nodded and said, "good, I hope you use it on them."


When Truman left, Stalin called his head of atomic bomb development and told him to hurry up and finish the Russian version of the atomic bomb.

 

[Robertinfremont]

When the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, the Canadian government was eager to claim a share of the responsibility.

"It is a particular pleasure for me to announce that Canadian scientists and Canadian institutions have played an intimate part and have been associated in an effective way with this great scientific development," Munitions Minister C. D. Howe boasted in a public statement.


Canada's role - The Globe and Mail




Canada and Britain pitched in on the Manhattan Project, of course.

A Canadian scientist was one of the first people to die of radiation at Los Alamos in New Mexico. He opened the door on a reactor too soon.

Not to distract, but Marie Curie died at an old age reported caused by radiation poison.

Her contaminated husband was crushed beneath the wheels of a horse drawn buggy in 1906.

 

[vegas giants]

When Truman told Stalin that America had the bomb, Stalin nodded and said, "good, I hope you use it on them."


When Truman left, Stalin called his head of atomic bomb development and told him to hurry up and finish the Russian version of the atomic bomb.

Which is the only reason truman used it

 

[Robertinfremont]

When Truman told Stalin that America had the bomb, Stalin nodded and said, "good, I hope you use it on them."


When Truman left, Stalin called his head of atomic bomb development and told him to hurry up and finish the Russian version of the atomic bomb.

As a then teen, I recall well when we used the A bomb and later when Russia exploded theirs followed by the H bomb explosions. In those days, TV broadcasters featured the explosions on Morning TV news shows. I watched a few A bomb blasts on TV live.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Which is the only reason truman used it

I enjoy watching you jump all over Democrats. keep doing it.

 

[vegas giants]

I enjoy watching you jump all over Democrats. keep doing it.

Larry says hi

 

[maxparrish]

No dude. A reference has a link.

Try again

LOL...not for those of us who read books...a skill that you should have acquired in primary school.

 

[vegas giants]

LOL...not for those of us who read books...a skill that you should have acquired in primary school.

Your claim is dismissed for lack of evidence

 

[swing_voter]

Which is the only reason truman used it

“You know the most terrible decision a man ever had to make was made by me at Potsdam. It had nothing to do with Russia or Britain or Germany. It was a decision to loose the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings. The Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, and I weighed that decision most prayerfully. But the President had to decide. It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities, and I still think that they were and are. But I couldn’t help but think of the necessity of blotting out women and children and non-combatants. We gave them fair warning and asked them to quit. We picked a couple of cities where war work was the principle industry, and dropped bombs. Russia hurried in and the war ended.”


The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive




Truman's own words.

 

[Oozlefinch]

As a then teen, I recall well when we used the A bomb and later when Russia exploded theirs followed by the H bomb explosions. In those days, TV broadcasters featured the explosions on Morning TV news shows. I watched a few A bomb blasts on TV live.

Interviewer: How do you find out if an atomic attack is coming?
Jose Jimenez: I turn on my radio and listen to Comrade.
Interviewer: Comrade? Surely you mean CONELRAD.
Jose Jimenez: No, Comrade knows long before they do.

I grew up listening to such humor, and still get a kick out of it to this day. For those that do not know, CONELRAD is the first ancestor of our modern "Emergency Alert System". The idea was that an alert would sound, and you would be directed to tune to 640 or 1240 on your AM radio for information about the inbound attack and where to take shelter.

Something seen on most radios made during that era. If you find a radio made from the early 1950's through the early 1970's, you might see 2 markings, usually circles or triangles. Those mark the 2 CONELRAD stations you were supposed to tune to.

I was just talking to my aunt the other day, about how kids today have no idea what things were like back then.

 

[Craig234]

You don't understand how this works, Craig. The stronger party doesn't sue for peace.... the weaker party does. If the US had made that pitch to the Japanese - say, via our respective embassies in Sweden or Switzerland - then it would have been perceived in Tokyo as a sign of weakness on our part. Perhaps US willingness to continue the war is flagging?

No, you do not understand how it works. You're trying to create some imaginary inflexibility because it helps your argument. IMO your 'weakness' argument is just one more thing you make up for the same purpose. The Japanese views were based on other things, like facts, and wouldn't be affected by the US communication.

I think that was a lot of our problem in Vietnam. We'd propose this peace deal or that one.... we'd follow up every lame-brained peace feeler some functionary in the French embassy came up with. We'd have bombing pauses to demonstrate our willingness to negotiate. And the whole while Hanoi was silent. They saw us thrashing around, and they rightly perceived it as a sign of weakness on our part.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you get Vietnam wrong, too. Here's what's relevant there: LBJ spent 1968 pursuing peace. He got an agreement with the North Vietnamese. Nixon secretly, treasonously persuaded the South Vietnamese to refuse, to help Nixon win the election. Under Nixon, the North had little reason to agree to peace on US terms, until the US finally essentially surrendered with some pretenses trying to save face.

So, in that light, can you see how our making a unilateral peace offer with any concessions whatsoever would have actually played into the hands of the militarists in Tokyo?

I don't think we could have done things 'into the hands' of the militarists in Tokyo.

They were radical ideologues, and I don't see any room for talks working with them.

What we could have done was try to work AROUND them with the others who were not the militarists, including the emperor. But yes, by that time, concerns about the value of Japanese life seem to have been pretty low.

 

[Nickyjo]

Wrong on both counts. The direct reason for the war was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The motivation for that attack was American opposition to Japan’s constant atrocities. The US never supported anyone who even came remotely close to being as bad as Imperial Japan, so your quote is meaningless.

Like I said before, you don’t seem to know anything about the Pacific Theater.

The US was opposed to Japanese expansion in that part of the war. Of course we criticized their atrocities, we are America, after all, but the bit of research I just did said it was their expansionism, brutal or not. They killed hundreds of thousands. In our hemisphere the US was opposed to any leftist movement, however democratic, in Latin America, due to our blind anti-communism and our own softer imperialism. We armed and trained soldiers and supported governments that murdered hundreds of thousands in our region. When Carter’s human rights policy criticized and withdrew aid from some of these countries, some on the moderate left in the region were flabbergasted. I saw an article in a Spanish language Christian magazine suggesting this was a way of recovering moral standing after Vietnam, else why would a country that had overthrown democracy and supported tyranny for decades care about, say, torture in Chile?

The difference between what Japan did in Asia and what the US helped others to do in Latin America was like the difference between dog **** and cat ****. Dog **** comes in larger quantities. Both stink.

I worked on these issues for 20 years. If you want stats and stories, I can provide them.

 

[Craig234]

I was just talking to my aunt the other day, about how kids today have no idea what things were like back then.

JFK pushed bomb shelters. I guess it gave people a sense of control to think they could survive an attack.