Why not "besiege" Japan?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
User avatar
R Leonard
Member
Posts: 348
Joined: 16 Oct 2003 02:48
Location: The Old Dominion

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by R Leonard » 19 Apr 2019 00:41

mikegriffith1 wrote:
14 Apr 2019 16:00
R Leonard wrote:
01 Apr 2019 00:50
"Privately informed the Japanese . . ." There's a laugh. Oh, please tell us all how that was to be accomplished? Pick a phone? "this is Harry, can I speak to Hirohito?"

Private communication, indeed, a typical clueless pipe dream. The Japanese were not communicating with the US and vise-versa in case you had not noticed. And as has been pointed out and asked so many times in this thread, just why is it the responsibility of the US to contact the Japanese? The US (and its allies) position was already clear.
It is unfortunate that you present such erroneous arguments with such sarcasm and posturing. Go read Toland's chapter on Japanese peace initiatives in The Rising Sun if you want documented cases of private/back-channel communication between us and the Japanese government.

Even if we had not already had back-channel discussions with the Japanese that were tracked by high officials on both sides (such as Stimson and Togo), we surely could have easily found a way to contact them privately. If we could make private contact with the Nazi government, including Hitler, to get them not to fire on boats with German POWs on them (which we did), we surely could have done the same with the Japanese--again, even if we had not already done so.
Again you and your learned professor (whose opinion in 2008 means nothing since he had naught to do with the realities of 1945) choose to ignore the overwhelming statements from the Japanese themselves (which old Harry Hopkins was, himself, no doubt, reading) . . . and most of them after that 12 July message you repeatedly bring up when you cry about the Japanese wanting to surrender, that surrender, even with retention of the imperial house, was out of the question. In their own words, Mikey, in their own words . . . come on, you know, Mikey, all those messages you choose not to mention because they negate your precious message of 12 July.
You surely know that the public statements of the Japanese government were very different from what they were saying--and doing--privately among themselves. This has been documented in numerous books. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and quote dozens of pages of material to prove how erroneous your posturing is. I suggest you read the research of Kawamura, Toland, Ham, Hoyt, Brooks, and Hasegawa, to name a few, who have irrefutably documented that by mid-July the emperor had made it clear he wanted the end the war and that the only irreducible condition was the retention of the emperor (i.e., the imperial house).
Also suggest that you read the Soviet declaration of war with the Japanese in case you have further confusion.
LOL! Oh, yes, and of course the Soviets always kept their word and never went beyond what they said they would do in their declarations! You bet. This is laughable material.

And none of your polemic changes the undeniable fact that the Japanese dreaded surrendering to the Soviets far more than they dreaded surrendering to us. Or do you deny this historical fact as well?

You know, we rightly complain because Japanese militarists and their supporters have sought to whitewash Japanese war crimes, but our militarists and their supporters seek to erase the well-documented fact that Truman ignored clear openings for surrender talks, that Truman's actions greatly helped the Japanese hardliners and hurt the moderates, and that Truman did not need to nuke Hiroshima, much less Nagasaki, to end the war without an invasion.

Mikey, maybe you should re-invent the wheel and read up on what the Japanese were saying in private. We all realize that you’ve no interest in anything which does not support your limited presentation, but you should read up what was happening. Don’t be silly. You really want to cite Toland? Really? Or are you simply repeating what someone else said about how Toland spells it out without actually reading it yourself?

Oh, you did read Toland? Frankly, I am surprised, but, well, gee, ‘back-channels’ indeed . . . after Toland tells us about the comedy in Sweden and all the monkey business in Switzerland, which, bye-the-bye, was totally belied by the content of Magic intercepts (oh, damn, there’s that reading the Japanese mail business again), and the plan to essentially give the Soviets whatever they wanted just to keep them out of the war (and Magic intercepts, and, indeed, the Japanese' official histories, show that the Soviets’ actual intentions were of absolutely no surprise to the Japanese . . they were fully prepared to write off Manchuria and Korea), did you get to this part:

While these scattered efforts went on, the Japanese militarists completed their final plans for suicidal defense if the homeland – Operation Decision (Ketsu-Go). More than ten thousand planes – most of them hastily converted trainers – had been collected. Two thirds of these would be thrown into the battle for Kyushu; the rest would be reserved to repel any landing near Tokyo. In the face of the bloody lessons of Tarawa and Saipan, the plan was to crush the Americans in the beaches with fifty-three infantry divisions and twenty-fine brigades – a total of 2,350,000 troops. These would be backed by almost 4,000,000 Army and Navy civilian employees, a special garrison force of 250,000, and a 28,000,000 civilian militia. This mammoth force would evolve from the national volunteer military service law for men from fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five which had been unanimously passed in the final Diet session. The military spokesmen, whose impressive testimony had ensured passage of the bill, later showed Suzuki and his cabinet a display of the weapons that would be used by the volunteers; muzzle-loading rifles and bamboo sticks cut into spears stacked beside bows and arrows from feudal times.” (page 756)

Do you not find it amusing that Part 8 of Toland’s The Rising Sun which covers the end of the war is entitled “One Hundred Million Die Together”? Wasn’t that to which the Japanese plans boiled down? Yes, yes, I know, the Japanese did not have a population of 100,000,000, and, yes, I know the slogan was, politely, jingoistic hyperbole, but to 1945 Western ears, and from all they’d seen so far across the Pacific for the last three and a half years, it was entirely believable as a plan.

And I do like Toland’s apt description at the beginning of the quoted passage “. . . these scattered efforts . . .” Do you suppose that might be some sort of veiled value judgement?

May I suggest that YOU read Richard Frank’s Downfall in its entirety . . . read it twice, please, before you again mention Toland. I mean, really, Mikey, your writing smacks as that of the leading lights of the Hiroshima Cult’s obvious belief that everyone else in the world is an unread peasant. Academic types, journalists, and Wards tend to do that. Did you not read in an earlier post from Takao to the effect that “this is not our first rodeo”? Do you really think that some of us over the last 50 years have not read BOTH sides, and yea, talked to people on the pointy end of the stick?

You would be sadly mistaken . . . as usual.

Really, the "private statements" from the Japanese? Considering that the powers that were in Japan, the "Big Six," had not a clue that someone was reading their mail, their ostensibly “private” messages, how can you explain away Foreign Minister Togo’s (you remember Togo, one of the “Big Six” who were actually running the show) stating flat out in a message to his ambassador in Moscow, Sato, on 13 July 1945 (this a day after the oft presented “see? The Japanese wanted to end the war” message) which, while reiterating the sentiment import of but a single paragraph from that treasured 12 July message, flatly states:

His majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifices upon the peoples of all belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the on and existence of the Motherland.”

That’s quite a qualifier.

And notice he does not, rather, say anything like: “Go to Molotov and tell him to tell the British and the Americans that we would like to capitulate . . . now; now, not next week.”

But, no, he piles it on and then, on the 17th, Togo to Sato, for Sato to present to the Soviets:

Although the directing powers, and the Government as well, are convinced that our war strength can still deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to fell an absolutely secure peace of mind in the face of an enemy who will attack repeatedly. If today, when we are still maintaining our strength, the Anglo-Americans were to have regard for Japan’s honor and existence, they could save humanity by bringing the war to an end. If, however, they insist unrelentingly upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese are unanimous in their resolve to wage a thorough-going war.”

And on reading these, just exactly what were the Allies supposed to think? Hmmm? What, that Togo was making some grand jest?

In the real world, when a nation’s foreign minister says something along the lines of “this is the way it is,” to his own people who are on the edge of events, then that is the way it is; plain, unambiguous, and very clear to all. Attempts to feed pablum to the Soviets with one hand while holding a sword behind their backs with the other are painfully obvious. Again, it is 1945, not 2019, what, exactly, were the Allies supposed to think when they read these messages?

Please enlighten us as to what a no surrender position, reiterated over and over in official, and supposedly secret communications, was supposed to mean to the people in the command loop on the Allied side?

And if you want further citation of similar statements (which I seriously doubt, since they are not part of your mantra), I, too, could reinvent the wheel, but, rather, I would suggest that you break out of your matrix and carefully read the message traffic post your treasured 12 July 1945 message. Try this, you can find them in order: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/librar ... o.htm#1427

The import of those messages is very clear. I’m sorry if your sources, and, thus you, cannot bring yourselves to read and understand the messages; never present them, never respond to pointed reference thereto, but to skip over them or blithely brush them aside. They have been pointed out to you on innumerable occasions in this thread and of which you never even acknowledge their existence, much less comment on same. So, either poor research work there on your part, Mikey, or a complete unwillingness to look at anything outside your half, nay, quarter, story . . . and it shows. I understand you only wish to trumpet your side, but to fail to look at all sides, and to fully grasp and understand the reality of events in the summer of 1945 and the decision making key players decisions as opposed to those outside the loop, or merely hanging on the periphery, with just an opinion, as much as you can through the lens of the summer of 1945 and not 2019, is quite a bit more than just a little disingenuous.

But, hey, that’s the fun part; those of us who do not subscribe to the Hiroshima Cult already know you only tell a quarter of the story.

You do understand how negotiations go, right? Offer, counter-offer, counter-counter offer, and so on. The Allies made their offer through the Potsdam Declaration and even as far back as Casablanca in 1943. It was not their responsibility to come up with some counter-offer in the face of Japanese official silence and intransigence and, indeed, private and official messages to various underlings which reject the Allies offer and, too bad for both senders and recipients, were being read by the Allies.

Any time after Saipan, in the the summer of 1944, the Japanese government, after dumping Tojo, could have approached oh, say, the Swiss, and say in an official message that they wanted to end the war. They knew how to do that because that what they ultimately did after Nagasaki . . . they wasted a whole year, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, totally destroyed cities, and incipient national starvation from a failed rice crop "look, you can eat acorns"). And, for what?

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4143
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 19 Apr 2019 01:42

"100,000,000" included every person of Japanese descent alive anywhere in the world. Gen. Anami Korechika promoted that slogan, and other homilies like "We will eat dirt and chew grass to save the empire."
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 322
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by paulrward » 19 Apr 2019 04:05

Hello All ;

To Mr. MikeGriffith1

On behalf of the many more-civilized members of this board, I would like to apologize for the churlish postings
and childish behavior of Mr. R. Leonard. You have raised many interesting points of a moral and ethical nature
regarding the issue of the use of Nuclear Weapons at the end of WW2, and the they are well worth discussing
as we approach the 75th anniversary of the end of WW2.

While I may disagree with you on the subject, ( as, looking back, considering the military alternatives that
were available to Truman and the political realities of his position ) I also recognize that the decision to use
the Atomic Bomb in the fashion he did was controversial at that time among the scientists who invented the
bomb
, and to many persons of a more thoughtful character in the years after.

Again, sir, I apologize for the rudeness you have been shown. It is not typical of the majority of the members
of this forum.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by South » 19 Apr 2019 10:15

Good morning Paul,

Per your post to all with specifics to Mike re our R. Leornard;

In all seriousness, can you post a short, an abbreviated "bullet" outline of the moral, the ethical and any combination nature regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I've been following and contributing to this thread and could not do so. Thus, am asking you to present these points.

Scientists are not members of a Sanhedrin. In blunt terms, they are merely "skilled labor". Think of us here at AHF and, for example, national commentators concerning contemporary even more lethal weapons than nuclear ordnance. I must recommend and place on record here Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer".

In 1945 much was not known about the effects - the effects - not the use - of nuclear weapons. The atomic bomber fleet had an attachment of scientific research aircraft no less funded nor staffed than the 19th century oceanographic fleet commanded by Admiral Beaufort. The research was concurrent with the battles.

FDR, Marshall, Stimson and a few others knew a little more than just the HE blast damage of nuclear ordnance. The Pacific strategy was based on the understanding of conventional weapons. Could Nagasaki experience anything worst than Nanking ?

Don't neglect that we are now dealing with President Truman and Admiral Kantaro.


~ Bob

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4143
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 19 Apr 2019 10:28

Gen. Groves and Oppenheimer at the Trinity Site. Two days after the blast. They were getting as much radiation as anybody in Hiroshima* who hadn't actually experienced the blast there.

Image

*Hiroshima was home to the 2nd Army HQ, the folks assigned to run the defense of Kyushu, the target of Operation Olympic.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by ljadw » 19 Apr 2019 12:11

It seems that certain people are forgetting that for the US the war in the Pacific was about killing Japanese,til Japan was willing to surrender .As Japan was only surrendering AFTER H and N, the conclusion is that Japan was responsible for both attacks : Japan could have avoided the attracks, it refused to do it and had to suffer the consequences .Argueing after 75 years that it was all the fault of the USA, is hoping that people will forget that Pearl Harbour was the work of Japan , not the USA .
You reap what you sow .

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4143
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 19 Apr 2019 13:19

The remnants of the FDR-is-a-demon-from-hell crowd is the FDR-is-STILL-a-demon-from-hell crowd. So they attack him.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

OldBill
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 04 Mar 2012 09:19

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OldBill » 19 Apr 2019 15:47

One question I've not seen asked (perhaps I missed it) was "What were the ongoing casualties of the war, that would continue without Japan's surrender?" The war was not confined to Japan proper, it continued in China, in the occupied nations. How many people were dying elsewhere, and would continue to do so, until Japan surrendered?

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4143
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 19 Apr 2019 16:48

Large numbers were dying in China. We were interdicting efforts to bring troops back to Japan for the last ditch defense. And Gen. Anami Korechika had ordered that all ~140,000 Allied POWs, men, women, children, were to be executed when the first Allied boot touched Kyushu. Fighting was still going on the CBI as well.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 322
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by paulrward » 20 Apr 2019 05:35

Hello All :

To Mr. South :

With respect to the
........short, an abbreviated "bullet" outline of the moral, the ethical and any combination nature regarding the use of nuclear weapons.......
No. This is too important a Historical Issue to reduce to a few ' Bullet Points ' . The last time someone tried to do this, we
ended up with two stone tablets with some questionable Commandments carved on them. And we all know how that has turned
out. ( I am still trying to figure out why I shouldn't covet my neighbor's wife's ass... )



I will begin: First, you make note that Scientists are not members of a Sanhedrin. This is true, even though a great many of the
Physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project were, in fact, members of the Jewish faith. In fact, if we go back, not to 1945,
but to 1939, we find it was Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, and Alexander Sachs who worked together to present to FDR
the famous ' Einstein-Szilard Letter ' that laid the foundation for the Manhattan Project. All four were Jewish, and all four saw in the
rise of Hitler in Germany a threat, not only to world peace, but also an existential threat to their own survival and to the lives
of all members of the Jewish faith. ( And, I think I cannot be disputed in this, the subseqent events from 1939 to 1945 proved them
to be essentially correct. ) So, in a very real sense, the development of the Atomic Bomb, which probably would never have occurred
to anyone in the Roosevelt Administration, was the result of a meeting of a group of very wise, middle aged Jewish guys. Go figure.....

Thus, as the Bomb was developed, more and more members of the scientific community, many of whom were brilliant refugees
who had fled from Europe to escape the threat of the Nazis, joined the effort to make the Manhattan Project succeed. They were
spurred on throughout the war by the facts that the Germans had a source of pitchblende in Czechoslovakia, and that there were
numerous equally brilliant physicists who were working for the German Government. To many who were involved in the Bomb Project,
they were in a race in which the Silver Medal would be worthless, and, for them personally, ' Failure was not an Option. "

Then came death of Hitler in April of 1945, and just a week later, V.E. Day. Suddenly, the threat was gone. The ' Race ' was
over, the U.S. could kick back and take it's time, as the liklihood of the Japanese developing a nuclear weapon in a near time frame
was unlikely in the extreme.

To the surprise of many of the Scientists, the U.S. Military did not share this viewpoint. Groves and Truman pushed the development
forward, in order to have a weapon to use, if necessary, to fight the war. And to the Scientists, who felt that THEY were responsible
for the very existence of the Bomb, this was extremely troubling. In effect, the Weapon that they would be creating would be used
in a manner in which THEY would have no input.

The second blow came with the Trinity Test. What had been equations on a blackboard, electro mechanical gadgetry, and rare
and exotic radioactive materials suddenly became, in one blinding flash, a terrifying new reality. As Oppenheimer put it, quoting the
Bhagavad-Gita, “Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.......”

To the Physicists, Pandora's Box had been opened. And some of them made a last ditch effort to close it before the world
found out that the Box even existed. To these scientists, the threat of Imperial Japan lacked the immediate reality of the
danger that Hitler had posed. If I wanted to get nasty, I might say that, without the risk that THEY might end up in a Death
Camp, many of the upper echelons of the Manhattan Project were now of the opinion that there was no reason to use the Bomb
at all.

The reality of the Nuclear Weapons underwent a sudden transformation. When the Scientists considered using it against Nazi
Germany, they believed that, afterwards, they could simply call for ' Soap and Towels ' , and wash their hands of the whole business.
But, with Hitler and his forces gone, suddenly the thought of potentially hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused by the
weapon that THEY HAD CREATED made many wonder , "Will all great Neptune's oceans wash this blood clean from my hand?
No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red."


To the Military and the Politicians who ran the United States, this was not an issue. They already had more than enough blood on
their hands to give them nightmares for the remainder of their existences. What they wanted was an END to it. Now. Today !

To men like Truman, every American service man lost after the detonation at Trinity was a real threat. After all, if the Bomb was
NOT used, and it came out years later, after a long, protracted Blockade or a Brutal, Bloody Invasion, that the United States had
possessed a weapon that might have saved those dead Americans, there would be hell to pay. People could be charged with Treason.
People could go to Jail. The best you could hope for would be disgrace and a permanent destruction of your reputation and career.

To be honest, If I had been Truman, I don't think that I would have had the Moral Courage to NOT use the Bomb. I would have
been perfectly content to sentence hundreds of thousands of Japanese men , women, and children to death, disease, and disfigurement,
in order to spare the lives of what would likely have been tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Chinese who
would have died during a Blockade.

And, to be honest, I cannot even conceive of a situation in which I would NOT have used the Bomb as an alternative to an Invasion. Not with the memories of Saipan, Guam, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa fresh in my mind.

The Japanese Military was arming their civilians with SHARPENED STICKS ! Children were being trained to put on dynamite vests
and crawl under an American Tank. They were massing thousands of Kamikaze aircraft and boats, and the pilots and sailors to
use them. Quite simply, the Imperial Goverment was getting ready to see if the U.S. Military would run out of bullets before the
Emperor ran out of women and children.

Harry Truman just changed two of the variables in that equation: Now is was, Would the U.S Military run out of Plutonium before
Japan ran out of Cities ?



Thank God for the Hanford Reactor.


After the War was over, Robert Oppenheimer had a little 'one-on one' with Truman. after which Truman instructed Secretary of State
Dean Acheson never to bring “that son of a bitch in this office ever again.”


Mr. South, if you insist on Bullet Points, here are a few:

1. We are dispassionate Scientists who are only concerned with the good of all Mankind .

2. Hitler might be capable of killing US, and he wants to do so. So, using the Atomic Bomb on Hitler is A-OK.

3. Hirohito is apparently not capable of killing US. So, using the Atomic Bomb on Hirohito is morally wrong....



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward



P.S. The next time you hear the word ' Technocracy ' just remember the above.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by South » 20 Apr 2019 10:03

Good morning Paul,

The Opium Wars in China, the Thirty Years War and the Napoleonic wars have been outlined. The nuclear warfare issue has been also. On this thread I already mentioned names such as Bernard Russell and Joan Baez. There are competing views to issues but outlines are still around.

Einstein was a self-defined agnostic and he refuted a supreme being - regardless of his heritage. Dietrick Bonhoff was also targeted and also some Third Reich generals (admirals ? "The Sound of Music").

The Revelation at Sinai (actually not the mountain in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt[ no volcano]) has much of a universal adoption regarding specific aspects. The neighbor's wife ass - and the animals - relates to the rudimentary understanding of the germ theory of disease. The word "measles" - looks like smallpox is a reminder of vestiges of the Sinai suggestions. Glance at the date of the Wasserman Test for syphilis. It's somewhat recent.

Paul, please be assured that every pseudo-Protestant and every converso-Jewish financier on Wall Street and LaSalle Street also saw "the rise of Hitler in Germany as a threat".

Recommend research "to anyone in the Roosevelt administration". Don't omit FDR's "Brain Trust". They weren't Unitarians or Buddhists....at least as to their public identification.

A pragmatist would realize that Hitler's death and D-Day did not eliminate the threats. Recall the embryonic Cold War. The onset of the Cold War in Asia was in 1949. An excellent essay explaining this: "The Origins of the Cold War in Asia", Yonosuke Nagai, editor, 1977.

The US military, like scientists, are not members of the American Sanhedrin. This lack of membership is regardless of inventories of pitchblende. The military, like the scientists, were subject to the contemporary version of Cuius Regio. Not too much is new under the Sun. It is the political establishment that provides the "input" for the manner in which ordnance is used - or not used.

AHF is a history site. The physicists ... close the "Box" before the world found out about its existence......" LOL ! Soviet spy Morton Sobel died as recently as December, 2018. Is it not possible ("probable" ?) Moscow and others knew ?

After WWII, Truman had left the formal political establishment.

Mankind (personkind?) does not have lowest common-denominators. This is why our species uses lethal confrontations to establish what is "good".

The big (hidden from public) post WWII weapon is not nuclear ordnance. There was a reason the US did not use nuclear technology in the Korean War or the Vietnam War. If time permits, glance at the matters at the end of the Cold War. It's microbiology. To clarify this delves into current events with the explicit political component. Thus, please excuse me for presenting something cloudy.

Meanwhile, instead of some Joan Baez music, gotta listen to something from the Loving Spoonfuls - or is it now the Loving Chopsticks ?!

~ Bob

First in piece
First in war
Last in knowledge of homonyms

paulrward
Member
Posts: 322
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by paulrward » 20 Apr 2019 20:23

Hello Mr. South :

In History, Timing is very important.

First, we have the Szilard Petition. You can see it here :

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Manha ... ndex.shtml

This came in two versions, the July 3 1945 and the July 17, 1945.


Next, we have the Teller Letter to Szilard, which can be found on the same website, dated July 4, 1945.
From this, and the Second Letter from Einstein to Roosevelt, dated March 25, 1945, we can see how, as the
war in Europe was winding down to a successful conclusion, suddenly the Atomic Scientists were getting
'cold feet' with regards to using the Bomb. The fact that Szilard re-wrote his petition on July 17 is
significant: The Trinity Test had happened the day before. Things had just gotten serious.



As an interesting note: One of my college professors was involved during WW2 in the Manhattan Project.
He was a Chemist who, before the war, had worked with Fluorinated Polymers. He went into the Navy
after Pearl Harbor as an Engineering Officer, and then, one day, while his ship was docked in Pearl, he was
summoned to his Captain's cabin. There, he was introduced to two civilians. ( who were NOT introduced
to HIM ! ) One of the civilians had a file folder, which he consulted, and asked my professor if he was
the same person who had written a certain scientific paper on Fluorine Plastics. My professor stated he was,
and then his Captain informed him that these two men were from Washington, and that there was a special
Government Project that was very inportant to the War Effort, and that, based on his knowledge, my professor
had been recommended for it.

My professor said that he asked a few questions, got no real answers, and then he asked his Captain what
he should do. The Captain said that, " If this thing is important, then you should probably go. " My professor
agreed, orders were cut, and a few hours later he was being flown back to the West Coast, and then the
East Coast.

He also commented that, in the years since, whenever he pondered the results of the Manhattan Project,
and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he also considered that his older brother was also serving as an officer in the
USN in the Pacific, and that, if the U.S. had been forced to invade Japan, and the USN had been attacked
by massed Kamikazes, his own brother might have been killed.

And he left it at that.



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by South » 20 Apr 2019 22:05

Good afternoon Paul,

Yes, timing is important. It was factored into White House deliberations and the resulting plans.

Besides the Teller and Szilard correspondence, much, much more flowed into the White House.

With only several individuals knowing about atomic physics, the rest of the senior US people viewed the atomic bomb as a geometric multiplier to Nobel's TNT ... His dynamite wasn't used too much in the military. Instead of a 500 lb bomb of TNT, the 500 pound atomic bomb was a geometric multiplier.

I do feel obliged to clarify or, at least, add focus to "the war in Europe was winding down to a successful conclusion..." In ETO, pending the final destruction of the Third Reich, the US had worries about a westward Soviet presence. The worries were legitimate.

In PTO, the invention and use of the atomic bombs meant that Soviet participation was not even needed. The US could break the Japanese link between the Chinese mainland and the Japanese home islands and on its own contain the Kwangtung Army. Again, like ETO, there were "concerns" about the USSR. The concerns were legitimate.

Thus, ref the above strategy, the USSR was no longer needed as an ally against Japan. An invasion meant a large loss of US life. A Soviet presence as an allied victor caused worries in the US - and not just the White House.

Do note that the Cairo Declaration provided for Manchuria to be returned to China. At this time, Moscow did not subscribe to the Cairo Declaration as per Manchuria's status. If the USSR entered the war in Asia, guess who would be the first in Manchuria !

Truman might then be obliged to have some US military presence in China. The US political establishment knew about the earlier Stilwell warnings "We ought to get out now". Chiang and Mao were, to use a double negative, not unknowns.

Truman had the ultimate decision - - - beyond the use of atomic ordnance - - - US policy re China was not only a strategic matter but also one involving grave political considerations because of an expanding Soviet presence in Asia.

The tie-in with your professor's USN brother in PTO; It's morbid but he could have survived the Japanese and KIA by Soviet forces.

I'm omitting much and appreciative that current events are off-limits.

Meanwhile, a cold Harbin beer would work wonders now. The Czar's brewery in Harbin, China is still there. The brew is rice-based.


~ Bob

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4143
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 20 Apr 2019 23:56

When the military needed the go-ahead to use the bomb Truman signed off on it like he would have signed off on the use of any other weapon. The idiotic retrofitting of future knowledge to past events in for amateurs, not historians.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Ironmachine » 22 Apr 2019 08:56

paulrward wrote:Mr. South, if you insist on Bullet Points, here are a few:

1. We are dispassionate Scientists who are only concerned with the good of all Mankind .

2. Hitler might be capable of killing US, and he wants to do so. So, using the Atomic Bomb on Hitler is A-OK.

3. Hirohito is apparently not capable of killing US. So, using the Atomic Bomb on Hirohito is morally wrong....
Oh, the beauty of hipocrisy :lol:.
In reality:

1. We are (not!) dispassionate Scientists who are only concerned with the good of all Mankind as long as our own lives are safe.

2. Hitler might be capable of killing US, and he wants to do so. So, using the Atomic Bomb on Hitler is A-OK because we are afraid and our own lives are so precious.

3. Hirohito is apparently not capable of killing US. So, using the Atomic Bomb on Hirohito is morally wrong.... and it doesn't matter to us how many servicemen are going to die if the war goes on, because we are safe.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”