Why not "besiege" Japan?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#121

Post by Hanny » 14 Feb 2019, 11:18

R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33
Since you seem to present yourself as having a better grasp of the subject matter than anyone else, and since enlightenment is a good thing, some questions for you, my friend, Hanny –

Did you miss the part where Togo, a member of the “Big Six” though certainly not with the clout of the Army and Navy members, responding to Sato’s suggestion of 18 July 1945 that the government – and that means the Big Six – agree to unconditional surrender on the basis of the preservation of the Imperial House, replies with “With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever.”?

Does not that sound definitive to you?

Is there some misunderstanding of the words: “ . . . we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever”?

Especially as applied to Sato’s recommendation?

Especially as pertains to Sato’s discussions with the Soviets?

Did Togo mean something else in this sentence?

And with those words, just what was Truman supposed to think?

Was he supposed to think that Togo and the other five were indulging in some grand jest?
Your asking questions to which i have already provided the answer. Ill ignore here and where you do this again. The only new thing, is your reference of the big six haveing not been able tom reach a desc ion on the Potsdam declaration, so suzuki cannot have been rejecting it as no decision had been made as they were split.Hence no comment is the only interpretation that fits the evidence.
R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33
With regard to the word 'mokusatsu', please do not play pedantic. I am well aware of the various meanings which could be applied to this word. I read your offering “Mokusatsu: One Word, Two Lessons” long years ago, before it ever hit the internet. (Yes, some of us are old enough to have done quite a bit of our research on paper, from paper sources, pre-internet. You’d be surprised what you can find in a reasonably well stocked library or two on the grounds of a reputable military college and four years, plus later visits for targeted subjects, to nose around.) I very clearly pointed out that I was using its politest form in English.
Then you should already know what Suzuki said he meant. You "very clearly pointed out" they ignored Potsdam, ignored and no comment are two very different things. Something know before the internet was invented as you point out, but now much more widely known.

"At four o'clock Suzuki told reporters, 'The Potsdam Proclamation, in my opinion, is just a rehash of the Cairo Declaration, and the government therefore does not consider it of great importance. We must =mokasatsu= it.' The word means literally 'kill with silence' but as Suzuki later told his son, he intended it to stand for the English phrase 'No comment,' for which there is no Japanese equivalent. Americans, however, understandably applied the dictionary meanings: 'ignore' and 'treat with silent contempt.'"
John Toland, "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the
Japanese Empire, 1936-1945." New York: Random House, 1970, pp 773-74
R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33
Rather than examine the various nuances, how about you provide the exact meaning that Suzuki meant as it is clear from my reading on the subject that the Japanese press at the time drew the same conclusion with a laugh as the evil American press did with outrage. What exactly did Suzuki mean, and, please, not the ruminations of people removed from the statement, including yourself? What did he say he meant? I suspect that even if you could find the answer, you would not be happy with it.
I more than happy with Suzuki telling his son he ment no comment. Just as happy that the mistranslated is used in the US education system to teach how such things have consequences.https://sites.psu.edu/swabrcl/2013/10/1 ... mokusatsu/

R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33

When you use you lowest figure are you saying these troops and auxiliaries were incompetent? Unable to inflict the casualties the Tokyo planners hoped to cause to the Americans to weary them so quickly that they would accept any terms the Japanese offered?

For your argument, you can’t have it both ways. Either the Japanese forces could accomplish their goal of inflicting so many casualties that the Americans would give up the attempt to invade or even force a defeat on the Japanese nation or they were so incompetent that they could not even come close.

Which is it?
Your not able to comprehend what i wrote very clearly at all, you should work on that.

First i used the JCS casualty estimates on which Truman asked for to make his choice, he looked and made his choice on those numbers and gave the Go order for employment unless cancelled by me. I did this to counter the numbers used by the uniformed who were using numbers from after he made the decision.

Second its not a lower figure, i gave both JCS numbers as we know he saw both, its the numbers given to Truman and on what he made his choice.

Now, the day the Japs surrendered Truman was to meet JCS and to make a another descion, if to go for Olympic, based on the newer casualty estimates, there is broad consensus he would not invade because of the casualty estimates of 250,000 ( numbers POTUS never saw!) but instead go with Kings blockade proposal which was also to be presented at the meeting as an alternative to invasion. Instead Truman went the diplomatic route ( State finaly joined everyone else, we need the Emp to run the place for us post war) and pretended it was an unconditional surrender, just as he had been advised by practically all to do. When people use these numbers it ignores the fact the bombs have already been used and the decision to employ them already taken, so these numbers are ex post facto and have nothing to to with the numbers he based his decision on.



Not after having it both ways, after the facts, the fact are what numbers he saw and made his choice, but instead of sticking with saving those numbers, he when under attack post war, trots out incredulous numbers ( which he never saw till after giving the go order on his way back from Potsdam and before it was issued to japan) as counter argument, instead of sticking to what he had based his decision on.
August 945 he makes several speeches all using 000s
"A grateful nation, hopeful that this new weapon will result in the saving of thousands of American lives, feels a deep sense of appreciation for your accomplishment"

April 6, 1949

"made that decision because I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved by making that decision, and some 3[00,000] or 400,000 of the enemy would be saved by making that decision."

April 28, 1959
""the dropping of the bombs stopped the war, saved millions of lives."

R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33
And, again, how many American/Allied casualties do you think are acceptable before one might be tempted to use a weapon with the potential to end it all in one fell swoop?
Already answered all of that.
R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33
And here’s a definition for you to parse, Occam’s Razor – the simplest solution or answer, rather than those which entangle or obscure, is the correct one.
Which is why military necessity as a reason for the use of the bomb fails that test. No leading US military officer asked for it, nearly all are on record as saying it was necessary, as i have already listed some but can add others. Just like the UK Monty “It was unnecessary to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan. . . I cannot think it was right to do so. . . The dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining moral standards of the conduct of modern war.” "and it is my opinion that 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… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. JCS Admiral Leahy

War ends with japan being giving assurance on the Emp, as it says without that assurance it will continue. That SU entry and use 2 nukes caused the wars end, fails that text.

As for the political failure to make clear at Potsdam
Grew wrote:
"Evey evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne, indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne comprise irreducible Japanese terms…They are prepared for prolonged resistance if it be the intention of the United Nations to try the present emperor as a war criminal or to abolish the imperial institution…Failure on our part to clarify our intentions in this regard..will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives".

Using Occam’s Razor for the following.
As its a crime against humanity to bring the people to the ovens, is it a crime against humanity to bring the ovens to the people?.


R Leonard wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 03:33
You seem to want to tell everyone that you know so much about the subject. For my own edification I anxiously await your learned answers to each and every question raised. Take your time, but no weaselling.
Im not being payed to educate you, so wont be doing so, try your local university, in 45 85% of US citizens were for using nukes on Japan, this has fallen every decade, by 2016 its 43%, as more boards of education replace traditionalist text book with a more balanced, revisionist, required reading list.
Last edited by Hanny on 14 Feb 2019, 14:16, edited 10 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#122

Post by South » 14 Feb 2019, 11:50

Good morning Hanny,

Truth is subject to various interpretations. It's not universal. I was taught that the inert elements were inert.

The same variations govern lies.

The best - perhaps the - only - matter to keep our minds sharp is the subject matter I was discussing yesterday with Uncle Bob...believe at the Lounge in re the obit of the late Mrs Toffler. My rambling involved -planning and contemplating-for end-times.......real end times.

All else: "Allegory of the Cave". All else involves rationalizations, perceptions, the psychological defenses.


~Bob
eastern Virginia, USA


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#123

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Feb 2019, 15:03

Hi Hanny,

You post, "In 45 85% of US citizens were for using nukes on Japan, this has fallen every decade, by 2016 its 43%, as more boards of education replace traditionalist text book with a more balanced, revisionist, required reading list."

Maybe, but for the 2016 generation it is purely a theoretical debate. The 1945 generation had real lives dependent on these decisions.

You may just be illustrating that the younger generation need more instruction on the realities facing their grandparents' generation at the time.

No reply necessary on this occasion!

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#124

Post by EKB » 14 Feb 2019, 23:56

Hanny wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 11:18
Your asking questions to which i have already provided the answer.

I don't think that anyone is sure what you're trying to sell about the use of atomic bombs. Or your notions about the exact time and conditions that caused decision makers in Japan to surrender. Nothing you wrote so far is conclusive.

Instead of getting to the point quickly, your lengthy replies are filled with irrelevant statements that won't prove anything. Making your posts longer does not make them authoritative. Your case reads more like a filibuster intended to prolong the thread instead of resolving it.

User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 03:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#125

Post by R Leonard » 15 Feb 2019, 04:09

EKB wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 23:56
Hanny wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 11:18
Your asking questions to which i have already provided the answer.
I don't think that anyone is sure what you're trying to sell about the use of atomic bombs. Or your notions about the exact time and conditions that caused decision makers in Japan to surrender. Nothing you wrote so far is conclusive.

Instead of getting to the point quickly, your lengthy replies are filled with irrelevant statements that won't prove anything. Making your posts longer does not make them authoritative. Your case reads more like a filibuster intended to prolong the thread instead of resolving it.
Which is why I asked simple questions that do not require long-winded, fluff answers. The questions I ask were those facing the folks making decisions in 1945, and that is the crux of the matter. That you, Hanny, want to apply 2019 thinking to people going through this in 1945 and you even apparently celebrate the 'revisionist' mantra, however sloppy the thinking and however far it leads one astray from the facts of history, in the US education business. After all, feelings are better that reality and everyone gets a trophy, right?

But, bad news for you, whatever angst you have over the use of the atomic bombs is absolutely, totally, and perpetually irrelevant. You were not there in 1945, you were not part of the decision process, so you do not get a vote any more than do I. And to pretend that you do, well, my, my, my aren't you Mr Important.

On the other hand. twisting, bobbing, weaving, bending the story, however, to meet your what appears to be another big-bad-americans presentation is not the presentation of history; it is a strung together bunch of incomplete and mid-characterized snippets . . . If you have really looked into the source documentation, once you took off your blinders, you would see that, too.

And, please, stop using the word "Jap," unless quoting in full from a period document. It is not very polite and casts you in a further bad light.

And, since you brought it up, the thoughts of those who spent their war years in and around Europe, Montgomery and, yes, Eisenhower, on the efficacy, efficiency or morality on the use of the atomic bombs was just so much hoohaa. They had no basis for making those statement as they had no idea, not one damn clue, what was going on the the Pacific.

Oh, and you failed the quiz. I am so very disappointed, I don't know what I shall do, how to survive your unwillingness to lend a hand in my understanding of what everyone should have done, but, you know, I am not at all surprised.

And as Sid said, no reply is necessary. I know I am already headed for your ignore list, but, you know, I could not care less.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#126

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019, 09:55

EKB wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 23:56
Hanny wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 11:18
Your asking questions to which i have already provided the answer.

I don't think that anyone is sure what you're trying to sell about the use of atomic bombs. Or your notions about the exact time and conditions that caused decision makers in Japan to surrender. Nothing you wrote so far is conclusive.
No selling anything. Conclusive enough for UK, European and m,any US States education standards.
EKB wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 23:56
Instead of getting to the point quickly, your lengthy replies are filled with irrelevant statements that won't prove anything. Making your posts longer
Complex questions require complex explanations.

But just for you and other simplistic minded people.
Samuel Walker
“The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.”
Last edited by Hanny on 15 Feb 2019, 13:29, edited 2 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#127

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019, 10:16

R Leonard wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 04:09
Which is why I asked simple questions that do not require long-winded, fluff answers. The questions I ask were those facing the folks making decisions in 1945, and that is the crux of the matter. That you, Hanny, want to apply 2019 thinking to people going through this in 1945 and you even apparently celebrate the 'revisionist' mantra, however sloppy the thinking and however far it leads one astray from the facts of history, in the US education business. After all, feelings are better that reality and everyone gets a trophy, right?
I suggest you read your own posts, and the answers to them, since your unaware of what they contained. You getting few if any facts correct and thus expressing incorrect conclusions, because your facts are not facts. Your the one contradicting the US educations sites and USA Command and Staff college, so its clear who is the one far astray from how the subject is taught.

R Leonard wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 04:09
But, bad news for you, whatever angst you have over the use of the atomic bombs is absolutely, totally, and perpetually irrelevant. You were not there in 1945, you were not part of the decision process, so you do not get a vote any more than do I. And to pretend that you do, well, my, my, my aren't you Mr Important.
Starts from false premise, ends with false premise, with a middle of irrelevancy
R Leonard wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 04:09
On the other hand. twisting, bobbing, weaving, bending the story, however, to meet your what appears to be another big-bad-americans presentation is not the presentation of history; it is a strung together bunch of incomplete and mid-characterized snippets . . . If you have really looked into the source documentation, once you took off your blinders, you would see that, too.
Fact free comment. Everything i quite is historical accurate, and then explain what it means. Your the one who has made claims about historic documents (meaning of Mokusatsu for example, and that the reply was not from big 6 as they had not agreed on a reply) and show to be wrong. Your the one with no idea how and what is taught, because you have very little grasp of the evidence. You seem ignorant that it was the USA who employed nukes not any other nation, so its hard to criticise those other imaginary countries you seem to think existed.

You certainly have not been taught your nonsense in the US Army, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a612192.pdf as you contradict what it teaches and has been taught for decades. The advantage of education in the military colleges is that unlike states who teach without a common core, US military does do that.

R Leonard wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 04:09
And, since you brought it up, the thoughts of those who spent their war years in and around Europe, Montgomery and, yes, Eisenhower, on the efficacy, efficiency or morality on the use of the atomic bombs was just so much hoohaa. They had no basis for making those statement as they had no idea, not one damn clue, what was going on the the Pacific.
I used leahy, Grew and Monty, your apparently dont know who the first two are, I did not use Eisenhower. But since you bring him up as not knowing what was going on in the Pacific.
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."


Your were asked for a leading military leader who supported the use of nukes. You have failed to even attempt a reply.

Ill do it for you since you cant do the simple things.


Leahy

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

Nimitz,
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

Arnold told him: (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:
said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war.

Claire Chennault,
Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped

MacArthur
"The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Bonner Fellers
Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war."

Carter W. Clarke,
we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.""the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."


U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that:
certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Hoover "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

MacArthur
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

JOHN McCLOY
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

RALPH BARD
"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

LEWIS STRAUSS
"It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

PAUL NITZE
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.""Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."


Or to be blunt, my views expressed in this topic are those held and expressed by the USA military leaders of 45. Yours are not.

R Leonard wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 04:09
Oh, and you failed the quiz. I am so very disappointed, I don't know what I shall do, how to survive your unwillingness to lend a hand in my understanding of what everyone should have done, but, you know, I am not at all surprised.


Your reading impaired, i did not take your quiz. ergo i could not have failed at it. That you *think* i failed shows exactly the level of understanding you have of reading textual evidence.

Using Occam’s Razor for the following.
As its a crime against humanity to bring the people to the ovens, is it a crime against humanity to bring the ovens to the people?.

To hard a question? for you?.
Last edited by Hanny on 15 Feb 2019, 15:52, edited 7 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#128

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019, 10:49

Good morning Hanny,

You've referenced several public figures and their - public - statements on the use of the atomic bombs.

Here's some public opinion samples from September, 1945:

From Fortune Magazine:
"Which of these comes closest to describing how you feel about our use of the atomic bomb?"

5% said: "We should not have used any atomic bombs at all".
54% said: "We should have used the two bombs on cities, just as we did".
23% said: "We should have used many more of them before Japan had a chance to surrender".

.......

Above from page 172, WAR, PRESIDENTS AND PUBLIC OPINION, John E. Mueller, 1973, ISBN: 0-471-62299-0.


========

Recommend maximum use of prudence and sound discretion in re:

"Everything I [write] is historicall accurate..."

Even strict constructionists are mortals.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#129

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019, 10:57

South wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 10:49
Good morning Hanny,

You've referenced several public figures and their - public - statements on the use of the atomic bombs.

Here's some public opinion samples from September, 1945:

From Fortune Magazine:
"Which of these comes closest to describing how you feel about our use of the atomic bomb?"

5% said: "We should not have used any atomic bombs at all".
54% said: "We should have used the two bombs on cities, just as we did".
23% said: "We should have used many more of them before Japan had a chance to surrender".

.......

Above from page 172, WAR, PRESIDENTS AND PUBLIC OPINION, John E. Mueller, 1973, ISBN: 0-471-62299-0.


========

Recommend maximum use of prudence and sound discretion in re:

"Everything I [write] is historicall accurate..."

Even strict constructionists are mortals.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Hi Bob

Truman was concerned over public opinion.

A study by the State Department Office of Public Opinion Studies on "Current Public Attitudes Toward the Unconditional Surrender of Japan" reached Truman desk. The study, dated July 16, concluded that:

"Influential press and radio commentators are increasingly calling for a statement to supplement--or to succeed--the "unconditional surrender" formula; and public opinion polls indicate considerable willingness to accept less than unconditional surrender, since nearly a third of the nation would "try to work out a peace" with Japan on the basis of Japanese renunciation of all conquests." [RG 59, Department Office of Public Opinion Studies, 1943-45, Box 39. Public Opinion on Foreign Countries and Regions; Japan and Korea 1945-54.]
While the study acknowledged that the majority of the public still supported the "unconditional surrender" program, it noted that, "These polls also suggest that a considerable portion of the public would not insist upon the conquest of the Japanese homeland before any effort is made to reach a peace settlement--provided Japanese power is ended in the Pacific islands and in Asia."

I quite agree my conclusion may be different, when drawn from the same facts, but as long as the facts are correct, and agreed upon, thats only only to be expected, its when people use facts that are not facts we hit a speed bump.
Last edited by Hanny on 15 Feb 2019, 11:50, edited 1 time in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#130

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019, 11:17

Gallup poll taken from the 10th to the 15th of August 1945 found that 85 percent of Americans supported the bombings, 10 percent were opposed to them, and 5 percent had no opinion.


19 August 1945 the Washington Times-Herald revealed the following:

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

President Roosevelt dismissed the general’s communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, “MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician.”

(…)

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords [the Japanese high-command], and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more.

The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma — domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

(…)

In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam…

These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum.

As i referenced an earlier post, on 85% support which fell ever since, once citizens were made aware japan was seeking to surrender, it fell in latter gallop polls.


What would you like to see happen to the Japanese after the war?"

INFANTRY COMBAT VETERANS In the Pacific Europe
Punish the leaders. but not the ordinary Japanese.47 %
Make the Japanese people suffer plenty 9%
Wipe out the whole Japanese nation. 42%
Undecided 2%

What would you like to see happen to Germany after the war?"
Punish the leaders but not the ordinary Germans. 29 %
Make the German people suffer plenty 10%
Wipe out the whole German nation. 2%

Same question to the US public showed 20% for Wipe out the whole Japanese nation.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#131

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019, 12:18

Good morning Hanny,

Do non-correct "facts" qualify as facts ?

Your material in above post and the second one supports the contrary posts you're receiving here from AHF participants- includes me.

"Influential press and ..." omits the non-influential - but these demographic segments were still present and had to be contended with.

The State Department was far from the best source of public opinion knowledge. Congress was.

That's a good - actually a "pertinent" FDR comment re MacArthur; "...our greatest general and our poorest politician". Actually, MacArthur was a high-quality politico - although not successful. Contrary to what's taught here, American politics is less about the personalities and more so about their political machines . Mac knew some other Republican would replace the FDR political establishment - and Mac was right. The Republican, General Eisenhower got the job after the winding-down by Truman completed.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#132

Post by OpanaPointer » 15 Feb 2019, 12:45

MacArthur's staff had to be told to stop wearing their "MacArthur for President" buttons when he met FDR and Nimitz in Hawaii. The buttons were like the "loyalty oath" campaigns, I think. Man had a HUGE ego.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#133

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019, 13:26

South wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 12:18
Good morning Hanny,

Do non-correct "facts" qualify as facts ?
Bob

No they do not. They produce RIRO.
South wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 12:18
Your material in above post and the second one supports the contrary posts you're receiving here from AHF participants- includes me.
They do?, i posted earlier 85% were in favour, and it dropped ever since, due to how it is taught and more information declassified and presented to students, after censorship was lifted in 45,the US press informed the public japan had been seeking to surrender for months, next polls show that support to drop to 53.5%.


South wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 12:18
From Fortune Magazine:
"Which of these comes closest to describing how you feel about our use of the atomic bomb?"

5% said: "We should not have used any atomic bombs at all".
54% said: "We should have used the two bombs on cities, just as we did".
23% said: "We should have used many more of them before Japan had a chance to surrender".

It looked odd that the % did not add up to 100%. it ignores 18% of the responses. Its not a quote from Fortune Magazine.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_-R ... AHoECAcQAQ
According to a Fortune poll on November 30, 1945:
Which of these comes closest to describing how you feel about our use of the atomic bomb?
We should not have used any atomic bombs at all -- 4.5%
We should have dropped one first on some unpopulated region to show the Japanese its power, and dropped the second one on a city only if they hadn't surrendered after the first one -- 13.8%
We should have used the two bombs on cities, just as we did -- 53.5%
We should have quickly used more of them before Japan had a chance to surrender -- 22.7%
Don't know -- 5.5%
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#134

Post by Sid Guttridge » 15 Feb 2019, 13:50

Hi Hanny,

Had Japan agreed to unconditional surrender before the bombs were dropped?

Had it even officially sued for peace?

If not, the use of the atom bombs remained a justifiable option, and one that certainly saved Allied and Japanese lives in considerable numbers compared with a conventional invasion.

I think the most acceptable criticism is that no demonstration bomb was dropped on an underpopulated area of Japan before any cities were bombed.

Cheers,

Sid.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

#135

Post by OpanaPointer » 15 Feb 2019, 14:21

I'm still chuckling over his suggestion that I get an education. I didn't know we were allowed after he used all the education up.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”