Was Hiroshima Necessary?

[ShamelessHussy]

Published on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Hiroshima After Sixty Years: The Debate Continues

by Gar Alperovitz

This weekend marks the 60th anniversary of the August 6, 1945 bombing of Hiroshima. One might think that by now historians would agree on all the fundamental issues. The reality, however, is just the opposite: All the major issues involved in the decision are still very much a matter of dispute among experts. An obvious question is why this should be so after so many years.
Did the atomic bomb, in fact, cause Japan to surrender? Most Americans think the answer is self-evident. However, many historical studies–including new publications by two highly regarded scholars--challenge the conventional understanding. In a recently released Harvard University Press volume drawing upon the latest Japanese sources, for instance, Professor Tsuyohsi Hasegawa concludes that the traditional “myth cannot be supported by historical facts.” By far the most important factor forcing the decision, his research indicates, was the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on August 8, 1945, just after the Hiroshima bombing.

Similarly, Professor Herbert Bix–whose biography of Hirohito won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction–also writes in a recent article that “the Soviet factor carried greater weight in the eyes of the emperor and most military leaders.”

Many Japanese historians have long judged the Soviet declaration of war to have been the straw that broke the camels back–mainly because the Japanese military feared the Red Army more than the loss of another city by aerial bombardment. (They had already shown themselves willing to sacrifice many, many cities to conventional bombing!)

An intimately related question is whether the bomb was in any event still necessary to force a surrender before an invasion. Again, most Americans believe the answer obvious–as, of course, do many historians. However, a very substantial number also disagree with this view. One of the most respected, Stanford University Professor Barton Bernstein, judges that all things considered it seems “quite probable–indeed, far more likely than not–that Japan would have surrendered before November” (when the first landing in Japan was scheduled.)

Many years ago Harvard historian Ernest R. May also concluded that the surrender decision probably resulted from the Russian attack, and that “it could not in any event been long in coming.” In his new book Hasegawa goes further: “here were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman Administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue.”

(On the other hand, one recent writer, Richard Frank, argues Japan was still so militarily powerful the U.S. would ultimately have decided not to invade. He justifies the bombing not only of Hiroshima but of Nagasaki as well. Japanese historian Sadao Asada believes that “there was a possibility Japan would not have surrendered by November” on the basis of the Russian attack alone.)

What did the U.S. military think? Here there is also dispute. We actually know very little about the views of the military at the time. However, after the war many–indeed, most–of the top World War II Generals and Admirals involved criticized the decision. One of the most famous was General Eisenhower, who repeatedly stated that he urged the bomb not be used: “t wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” The well-known “hawk,” General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The “use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

Some historians believe such statements may have been made partly to justify postwar funding requests by the various military services. Several years after the war General George C. Marshall did state publicly that he believed the bombings were necessary. On the other hand, long before the atomic bomb was used Leahy’s diary shows he judged the war could be ended. And Marshall is on record months before Hiroshima as suggesting that “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that... we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers....”

Why was the bomb used? The conventional view, of course, is that it was to save as many lives as possible. But if this is so, several historians now ask, why did President Truman and his chief adviser Secretary of State James Byrnes make it harder for Japan to surrender? Specifically, why did they remove assurances for the Japanese emperor from the July 1945 Potsdam Proclamation warning Japan to surrender? The assurances were strongly recommended by U.S. and British military leaders, and removing them, they knew, would make it all but impossible for Japan to end the war.

A traditional theory has been that the President feared political criticism if he provided assurances to the emperor. But, other historians note, leading Republicans were for–not against–clarifying the terms to achieve a surrender, and were calling for this publicly. Moreover, American leaders always knew the emperor would be needed to order a surrender–and, of course, in the end they did agree to an understanding which allowed such assurances: Japan still has an emperor.

Hasegawa believes the assurances were taken out of the Potsdam Proclamation precisely because American leaders wanted to have the warning rejected so as to justify the bombing–and, further, that they saw the bomb as a way to end the war before Russia could join the fighting. There is other evidence suggesting that policy makers, especially Secretary of State Byrnes, wanted to use the bomb to “make the Russians more manageable in Europe”--as he told one scientist.

(Full disclosure: My own view–as one of the historians involved in the debate--is that the bombings were unnecessary and that American policy makers were advised at the time that a combination of assurances for the emperor plus the forthcoming Russian declaration of war would likely bring about surrender in the three months available before the invasion could begin. I also believe the evidence is strong, but not conclusive, that American leaders saw the bomb above all as a way to impress the Russians and also as a way to end the war before the Red Army got very far into Manchuria.)

Why are historians still struggling over these issues? One reason is that few nations find it easy to come to terms with questionable actions in their past. Nor is this a simple left-right debate. In recent years liberals have been critical of the decision. At the time The Nation magazine defended the bombing while many conservative publications criticized it–including Human Events, and later, the National Review. “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul," former President Herbert Hoover wrote to a friend.

One of the most important reasons the issues don’t seem to get resolved has to do with the historical record. The fact is most discussions concerning the decision to use the atomic bomb were simply not recorded. Not only were such matters handled in an extremely secretive manner, they were largely handled outside the normal chain of command. There is also evidence of the manipulation of some documents and of missing documents in certain cases–and in some instances, evidence that documents were destroyed.

Perhaps one day we will know more and the long debate over Hiroshima will come to an end. We are unlikely, I think, to discover new official sources. However, a new generation of scholars may well be able to ferret out diaries, letters, or additional personal papers in the attics or basements of descendants of some of the men involved. An even more interesting possibility is that the President’s daughter Margaret will one day donate additional papers to the Truman Library. (In her own writing Margaret reports details which seem clearly to be based on documentary sources. However, she has so far refused to respond to inquiries from historians asking for access to these.) A third possibility is that if, as some believe, the Soviets bugged the Truman villa near Potsdam, Germany (or the villas of other American or British officials who were there for the July 1945 meetings just before the bombings), there may be tapes or transcriptions of some key conversations in NKVD or other files in the Russian archives.

Gar Alperovitz, Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland is the author of Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam and of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.

source...
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm

For those who are interested in learning what our military leaders thought about it I encourage you to visit this site to learn more about this important topic.

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

here are a few quotes...

Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff

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. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. - THE DECISION, p. 3.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet

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. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . - THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet

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. - THE DECISION, p. 331.

more quotes...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

These folks are not peace-nicks, or lefty's and these folks were there at the time unlike the revisionist of today or propagandist of yesterday.

[vadawg]

1. im not second guessing guys that made the call 60 years ago

no more than i like people second guessing calls i made last week....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. God forbid history should be looked at critically.

[vadawg]

7. go ahead look, but try not to put your worldview on their decisions

you got to look at it in context of what was happening, i hate to see people judging history without the unbiased eye but bringing their bugabears.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Isn't that the standard line on all historical apologia?

Sure, Columbus murdered natives, but he had a different worldview.

Sure, Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves, but he had a different worldview.

Sure, Hitler gassed the Jews, but he had a different world view. And shouldn't be judged based on our biased worldview.

[vadawg]

27. lol i guess that history to you must be a total shock then

that nobody in history thought the way you do, and because of that they were all lesser than you, get real, you know exactly what i am saying we are all products of our time and that is the context we must be judged in, i love when people put their viewpoint on the past...

[ProfessorGAC]

149. No.

Happy now?
GAC

[ShamelessHussy]

8. All our military leaders in theater at the time thought it wasn't necessary

For those who are interested in learning what our military leaders thought about it I encourage you to visit this site to learn more about this important topic.

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

here are a few quotes...

Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff

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. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. - THE DECISION, p. 3.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet

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. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . - THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet

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. - THE DECISION, p. 331.

more quotes...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

These folks are not peace-nicks, or lefty's, and these folks were there at the time, unlike the revisionist of today or propagandist of yesterday.

[vadawg]

10. cool so if the military leaders in the field in iraq and afghanistan want to use nukes

then you would say they trump the president, or is it only when military leaders agree with you.. the military leaders in the theatre would have all the info pertinent to their job but it was up to the president to make the decision based on all the info he had at the time. personally, if i was in the marines at that time and in that climate i would rather 2million japanese die than i have to storm the homeland.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vadawg]

46. and i guess that means the military in your book get to make decisions then

as i said in my post, regardless of your inability to understand that its the civilian leadership who make the decision whether to drop the bomb or not, kinda like today its obamas decision regardless of what the generals think.. the president makes the choice based on military and political decisions and ill go with with truman

[Xicano]

66. Where did provis say its the military's decision?

All he said was not even the military thought it necessary to drop those bombs. And I think the military who were there and the ones who were doing the fighting and dying are in a much better position to make that analysis than you are.

provis99's and other's point, which you seem to be too narrow minded to understand, is that the analysis from these military leaders who were there corroborate the arguments from others that the only reason Truman dropped those bombs was to show off to the world the might and resolve of U.S. military power. A war crime indeed.

"the president makes the choice based on military and political decisions and ill go with with truman" --vadawg

Political reasons? Political reasons to drop a nuclear weapon on people? So what you're saying is that since the military's analysis was the dropping of these bombs were not necessary on a military stand point. Therefore you believe Truman's political reasons were adequate to justify their use? Wow! Just wow!

Also, are you saying these military leaders are idiots and didn't know what the fuck they were talking about? Because if you recant and say political reasons are not enough to justify, then, by default that is what you're saying.

Truman was a fucking war criminal for dropping those bombs because he knew damn fucking well Japan was already toast. Vaporizing thousands of civilians, women, children and elderly. Obliterating a city. How can there be justification for that especially when they were already trying to surrender and there was no military reasons to drop them.

People who defend Truman's decision need their heads examined.

[Raskolnik]

12. More cut & pasted quotes. More Doug Long.

Still no context.

[damntexdem]

18. Strong evidence here.

But it wasn't the scientists who decided to use it -- not even Teller had that power. Military and political leaders decided to use it.

[TheWraith]

160. No, that's simply not true.

And a few cherry picked quotes won't change the facts. The prevailing thoughts of the Pacific theatre command at the time was that the use of nukes wouldn't be sufficient to force a Japanese surrender, and that a full scale invasion would still be necessary. In fact, there was a request from the military to the CIC that after the planned third bombing, any further bombs that could be produced be saved for tactical use against Japanese army and militias after the invasion had begun.

[ingac70]

3. Setting them of in Japan back then

is what what will insure they are never used again.

Mutually assured destruction helps maintain peace.

[Zywiec]

4. Japan Seeks Peace

:rofl:

Best part of the whole article. I always love this argument!!!

:rofl:

[Raskolnik]

17. Why are you laughing?

I'm sure that the OP has considered that the "peace" which Japan was seeking required keeping their conquered territories, keeping their military intact, and keeping the wartime government in place.

Because, of course, if the OP hasn't considered the ramifications of those conditions, this would be a pretty intellectually lazy/dishonest OP, wouldn't it?

[jody]

5. No need to read any more revisionist history. Thanks to FDR who ordered the project, to Truman who

ordered the bomb be dropped and all who participated in the development and operational use of the bomb to end WWII.

[Hugabear]

13. "Revisionist history" - what the fuck is this crap?

So the fact that we now have access to documents showing that Japan was indeed interested in peace (maybe not on OUR terms, but still peace nonetheless), and that many military leaders (including Eisenhower) thought it wasn't necessary, you call it "revisionist"?

[jody]

15. Yes I do. Have a good day. n/t

[damntexdem]

19. And despite epithets like 'revisionist,' revision is often necessary.

The issue is the evidence for the need for revision. And these 'revisionist' views were voiced at the time and since -- though without the evidence that strengthens the evidence for them.

I still don't know where to come down -- but I want to hear the differing visions, re or otherwise.

[jody]

23. Suggest you read "The Invasion That Didn’t Happen ".

"The Invasion That Didn’t Happen"

[KittyWampus]

37. so you admit Japan was only interested in peace on THEIR terms? You just lost your argument

and yet you will persist in trying to argue otherwise.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

60. That's only true on the internet.

Where cut & pasted quotes are seen as the height of reasoning.

[Confusious]

93. Germany was interested in "peace"

Just not on our terms. Should we have taken them up on it, O' all knowing one?

[ProfessorGAC]

150. Eiesenhower Wasn't There

If that isn't meaningful to you, you have my sympathies for your lack of vision.
GAC

[Oregone]

6. Yes

3,478,369 civilians would of died in a ground invasion, as well as 202,117 US troops (the war would of laster 214 days longer). It also would of cost $28.5 million dollars to do so (which would of been good for the MIC), but it would have led to less federal funds for highway development around Northern California (above Shasta) and in western Colorado. Truman would not of won his election, and decades later an entire parallel universe would of been spawned where Sonny Bono was elected president, had an affair with Madeline Albright, and was subsequently assassinated by a gang of roving gypsies. We would currently be ruled by an international force of Canadians and Lizard People on behest of the Kingdon of Gondor. So, wouldn't you prefer the bomb(s) now?

This is common knowledge. Only an idiot would continue to pose these questions.

[damntexdem]

20. Over-precise quoting of estimates doesn't establish opponents as 'idiots.'

Only an idiot would want questioning to cease. But I won't call you an idiot, because I detect what might have been a hint of sarcasm in your post.

[Oregone]

29. Strictly adhering to fantasy hypotheticals as the truth does

No one has a crystal ball, you know

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

11. This is some sloppy historical scholarship, that's for sure. n/t

[The Magistrate]

146. True, Sir: Here Is A Tid-Bit Concerning LeMay At The Time, From An Eyewitness

'In an August 2002 interview with Studs Terkel published in the British Guardian newspaper, Paul Tibbetts recalled something similar: "Unknown to anybody else--I knew it, but nobody else knew--there was a third one. See, the first bomb went off and they didn't hear anything out of the Japanese for two or three days. The second bomb was dropped and again they were silent for another couple of days. Then I got a phone call from General Curtis LeMay. He said, 'You got another one of those damn things?' I said, 'Yessir.' He said, 'Where is it?' I said, 'Over in Utah.' He said, 'Get it out here. You and your crew are going to fly it.' I said, 'Yessir.' I sent word back and the crew loaded it on an airplane and we headed back to bring it right on out to Trinian and when they got it to California debarkation point, the war was over."'

[damntexdem]

14. Hard to tell. But Nagasaki was clearly wrong.

If a second bomb was needed, Nagasaki was not the correct target -- hit only because it was a city that had not been extensively bombed, but for good reason.

And a second bomb just three days later did not give enough time to see whether the first one did the trick.

[proteus_lives]

16. Utter horseshit.

Japan was not ready to surrender and they weren't the wronged party in this affair. Yes, the bombing were horrible but the other options were a lot worse.

Dropping the nukes was the correct decision.

[damntexdem]

21. Japan was not the wronged party; but the inhabitants fo two Japanese cities may have been.

The dropping of the first nuke is an issue that will be rightfully debated for a long time to come.

The dropping of the second, at least its target, appears to have been a crime.

[WeDidIt]

26. sorry, I ahve no sympathy at all for anybody in those bombings

Not one whit of sympathy.

It was war and war means killing people.

We didn't start it.

We finished it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. So if some Iraqi insurgents got the Bomb...

and detonated it in a couple of American cities... you wouldn't have sympathy for the victims. They didn't start it, after all.

[WeDidIt]

32. Apples to horses

No comparison.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Well, there's the issue of race.

Other than that, it's a pretty similar comparison.

[Confusious]

94. Yea, Truman integrated the military

He was a RACIST!

[Unvanguard]

114. That's a distraction from the point. It would be pretty hard to argue that racism

played no part in US attitudes toward the Japanese during World War II.

[Confusious]

141. Sorry

forgot we didn't want facts getting in the way of a good meme.

[Ignis]

44. I think you're missing a fundamental difference:

We are always the good guys, and can do no wrong.
They are always the bad guys, and our actions are justified against them.

Once you wrap your head around that viewpoint, it's easy to understand why some people can't stand any criticism of US actions during wartime (e.g., Vietnam).

[The Magistrate]

125. Nonesense, Sir

Many of the people you are so 'misunderestimating' with that tripe have strenuously opposed U.S. actions in Iraq and Viet Nam, among other venues. Your comment here lays bare the principal thing underlaying one side of this 'debate', namely a preference among some for moral posturing over considered understanding of actual events.

[LeftishBrit]

102. You have no sympathy for children who were horribly injured or killed?

For a baby born with serious birth defects 10 years after the war, because of their mother's radiation exposure? And obviously had no responsibility for the war?

Even if you think Hiroshima WAS necessary, do you really have no sympathy for the innocents who suffered as a result?

[Unvanguard]

111. That is not really much of an argument.

Do you think that any acts at all are justified against the power that is the aggressor? Are you really willing to deny consideration to every last person living under a government that starts a war?

[proteus_lives]

33. Total war.

The inhabitants of those two cities were members of the war effort.

Dropping the second wasn't a crime. Japan refused to surrender after Hiroshima and that means Nagasaki was a legitimate target.

[TankLV]

89. They didn't surrender after the first one, they didn't surrender immediately aftrer the SECOND one

either.

Hirihito had to BEG the generals to surrender.

The Generals were NOT willing to surrender even AFTER the SECOND bomb was dropped...

[kgnu_fan]

22. Was Iraq Invasion Necessary?

At that time, "they" said YES.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Was 9-11 necessary?

Thousands of Saudi troops would have been killed in a ground invasion.

[kgnu_fan]

28. War has its own logic - Dehumanization of "enemy"

"Poeple" become invisible.

[Zywiec]

31. Hiroshima ended a war, the other started one n/t.

[ShamelessHussy]

39. Then why did we bomb Nagasaki if it ended the war?

The fact is, the war only ended when we accepted their major condition for surrender... and the Chrysanthemum Throne remains as testament to this very day as the worlds oldest hereditary monarchy.

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if we had let them know we would accept that condition sooner?

[Zywiec]

40. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if they surrendered unconditionally

before Hiroshima?

How about before Pearl Harbor?

I don't spend my life playing "what if" like many here in their fantasy world like to play.

[ShamelessHussy]

41. That was not the norm of warfare and doesn't justify mass murder of a defeated enemy

except to a barbarian sensibilities I would suppose.

[Confusious]

95. Yea the 30 million killed by the Japanese during WW2

Shared your opinion. Except they couldn't say anything, 'cause they were dead.

[Voltaire]

34. I don't think the bomb was dropped to beat Japan

I think it was dropped as a demonstration project to the Soviets.

[WolverineDG]

36. I wonder if the Japanese beat themselves up every year on 12/7

Until I see "Pearl Harbor: Was it Necessary?", I'm going to say "yes."

dg

[Obamanaut]

38. Was, or is, any city necessary. Is Chicago necessary? Or Boston?

Or Phoenix? Or do you mean the destruction of the city via an atomic weapon?

Hindsight tells many people that the use of the two atomic weapons (including the one on Nagasaki) was probably not necessary.

But, it's done now and hopefully no one will do it again.

[rug]

45. No.

[slackmaster]

47. It doesn't matter whether or not it was necessary

It happened and can't be un-done. The best thing people can do is apply the knowledge of the horrible results of the bombings to present and future decisions.

K&U

:kick:

[ShamelessHussy]

71. It certainly does matter

Those who ignore history are bound (or doomed) to repeat it.

[newtothegame]

48. If you've got a culture that hides grenades and blow themselves up after surrendering....

or cuts off the genitalia of captured enemy and puts it in the mouth of said soldier for his buddies to find, or flies their own planes into warships, or has soldiers that stay on an island decades after the war is over, yes, they probably are not likely to give up very easily, so the message needed to be big.

[wroberts189]

49. No one should use WMD ever. Is that not our US policy? nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Was the bombing of Pearl Harbor necessary?

Was the rape of Nanking necessary?

[ShamelessHussy]

51. What does that have to do with it?

They attacked a military base when we cut off their oil (same thing we would do - act of war) and they were dealing with 'terrorist' in china, just like we claim in iraq... ever hear of Fallujah?

I am asking about our actions against a defeated nation... remember 2 wrongs don't make it right.

[proteus_lives]

53. That's where you're wrong.

When we dropped the bombs, Japan wasn't a defeated nation. It was a legal and just act of war.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. We did no such thing and you know it.

Refusal to sell oil and equipment to a country is not an act of war. We did nothing to stop other nations from sending oil to Japan. We were not obligated to provide Japan with oil for its genocidal war machine in China. There was no naval blockade or any other intimidating military action taken against Japan before Pearl Harbor.

[Raskolnik]

65. The fact that you so casually dismiss Nanking tells me a lot. n/t

[TankLV]

90. What does it have to do? EVERYTHING!!!

some people are so fucking IGNORANT...

[Confusious]

96. Oil embargo OPEC

Look it up. We attacked no one.

[neverforget]

122. The oil was feeding their war machine which was killing a lot of civilians

in Asia. Japan was dependent on the US for oil to the tune of 80%. We were feeding their empire, so we put an end to it. The Japanese Empire needed oil so they decided to take by force that which we would not sell to them. They attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor so they can take out the one obstacle to their expansionist dreams. With our fleet out of the way, they took the oil fields in Borneo and Indochina.

Saying that Japan was a defeated nation and saying they were trying to surrender are 2 different things. Militarily they were defeated. It was obvious but the people in charge, the hard-line military dictatorship, wanted to fight to the end. It wasn't until after the bombings that Hirohito said that it was time to surrender. Thankfully, the attempted military coup against Hirohito failed.

The peace feelers that Japan was sending out before the bombings included keeping the territorial gains, no military occupation of Japan and the Emperor keeping his throne. Many people had to die to free Asia from Japanese rule.

And just to show which side suffered the most deaths, it wasn't the Axis side. It was the Allied side.

[LeftishBrit]

103. No.

But fortunately the Japanese seem to have come to the conclusion that such acts are not necessary or desirable. Their constitution explicitly renounces the right to declare war or use military force as a means of settling international disputes.

On the other hand, it's not so clear that everyone else has come to the conclusion that using nukes is always a bad thing. Well, they *haven't* used them in 60 years, so maybe we can hope....

[Unvanguard]

115. Absolutely not. No one ought to minimize the atrocities of the Japanese.

But it does not alter the fact of Hiroshima.

[Sirveri]

52. This is all so irrelevant. Nukes killed a lot less than other bombings.

We leveled the city of Dresden, we firebombed entire cities over in Japan. Two small nukes are nothing. In fact from a cost effectivness standpoint the nukes were really a waste of time.

Anyone who studied this subject already knows that Japan was going to surrender and that it was irrelevant to use them. That said they were useful as a demonstration to the USSR and to ascertain the resulting medical effects and study fallout contamination. Which later reinforced MAD doctrine which kept the USA and USSR from nuking each other during the Cuban Missle Crisis and other time periods.

But over all they were a very small part of the war, and while not necessary to bring it to a close were still usefull.

[ShamelessHussy]

56. Not true - Nukes Keep Killing long after they dentonate, reaching into the womb

and across generations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6216930

[Sirveri]

57. One poster said one million, that thread is under 500k.

Truth of the matter is that if you want a sheer kill/cost efficiency nukes are a horrid way to achieve it. It was a weapons test more than anything. In addition due to MAD doctrine it likely prevented a WW3 between the USA and USSR. If anything nuclear weapons might have saved more lives than they took.

[ShamelessHussy]

58. I was just pointing out the error and nuclear weapons lead to the greatest arms and terror race ever

Claiming that the use of nuclear arms saved lives is the clearest example of cognizant dissonance I can think of.

[Sirveri]

59. If the use of nuclear weapons stopped their future use, then it saved lives.

It's all about a hypothetical benefit. If we didn't use them in Japan, would we have been more willing to use them later? I think we would have, and if we did they would have been much more powerful and killed a LOT more people.

[ShamelessHussy]

63. It has ALREADY destroyed lives and has the potential to do it again.

And we have killed millions (as have others) since then in our race of terror, so the scoreboard does not look good thus far.

[Quezacoatl]

54. Ask Japan

The argument that the bombing "saved" lives can only hold up if Japan agrees that the bombing of their women, children and elderly civilians was necessary.

Of course Americans think it was necessary - no Americans died. According to the arguments many more Japanese would have died if there was no atom bomb, so logically they must agree that the bombing was necessary. I wonder if they do.

Also according to the estimated lives saved argument if any war is estimated to be long with many casualties then nuclear weapons should be used ASAP - to save more lives.

I get it now. The arms race is actually a humanitarian effort to save lives.

[TexasObserver]

61. Sadly, yes it was. But it was still a tragic event.

The film HIROSHIMA is excellent and I recommend it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

62. I hate the idea of people dying and I detest war

But I'm not going to cry that many tears for the Japanese. Japanese men, women, and children loved their Emperor and would have done anything for him. I've spent the last 17 years working in a Chinese law office and I've run into old people who remember what Japanese soldiers did to them. And it wasn't just the bad apples, it was virtually all of them. It was an extreme racism against individuals that were viewed by Japanese culture as less than animals. Carrying Chinese babies on the ends of their bayonets and parading through the streets. Pouring gasoline on a mother and threatening to set her on fire unless her husband raped their daughter before their eyes. Sending thousands of Chinese to camps where scientific experiments were performed on them. Treating surrendering prisoners like animals and not human beings and forcing them into death marches because they lost their honor in the eyes of the Japanese by surrendering. Putting British prisoners of war into the holds of slow ships back to Japan and not giving them anything to eat or drink (forcing the prisoners to live off their own urine and eat rats). Sending thousands of women from occupied nations to brothels for the entertainment of Japanese soldiers. The barbarity was extreme.

While I would not have dropped the atomic bomb if there were alternatives and would have tried to find another solution, I want to know why we seem to focus on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and not on Nanking or the many acts of cruelty in Manchuria including the experimental camps, as well as in virtually every place the Japanese conquered.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. I think there's a sense among liberals that the dark parts of the losers history is already known

Whereas the dark parts of the victors' history has been covered up and should be exposed.

[proteus_lives]

68. As a history major and WWII buff, it always baffles me how people gloss over Japan ravaging Asia.

The atomic bombings shouldn't be celebrated but we have every right to acknowledge the fact we put a brutal empire out of business.

[ShamelessHussy]

69. Discussing our decision to Nuke a defeated nation's civilian population, twice, does not 'gloss over

Japan's despicable war crimes during wwII, though some try to use it to cover up ours.

[proteus_lives]

70. The bombings weren't war crimes.

So there is nothing to cover up. Read up about the concept of Total War.

And why do you continue to spread the falsehood that Japan was a defeated nation before the atomic bombings?

[Parche]

131. same with me

being a history buff, and especially a WW2 Pacific one....
the answer is ....it was a necessary evil
saved alot of POW's, including my favorite and hero, Dick Okane
:hi: :patriot:

[LostInAnomie]

64. Yes.

[quaker bill]

72. I do not know

but I know this, my father was redeployed from Italy as part of the force preparing for the conventional ground invasion of Japan. So, while I find the use of nukes to have been a horror upon the many horrors of that war, it is likely I would not be here to do so, had these weapons not been used.

So, I usually do not go to far into this sort of discussion and simply mourn the horrific loss of both people and humanitarian principle.

[pampango]

73. Continued "normal" bombing would have been worse, as it killed many times the number

killed by atomic bombs.

If the war would have ended soon anyway, then the atomic bombs were not necessary. If one believes that the Japanese were prepared to endure sustained "normal" bombing and a land invasion, then the atomic bombs saved many lives.

[ShamelessHussy]

74. Not true - Nukes Keep Killing and Maiming long after they dentonate

reaching into the womb and across the generations.

Since the Japanese were defeated militarily and interested in negotiating a surrender why would the mass bombing of innocent civilians need to continue?

[quaker bill]

76. True, but how many conventional bombs and bullets

would it have taken? How many guys with flamethrowers, how many phosphorus incendiaries, how many bazooka rockets and tank shells? That war had killed millions upon millions of people already, by very conventional means. Radiation does indeed keep on killing and maiming, but how many were never born because those who would have been their parents died by conventional means?

While I agree that nukes are horrific and need to be eliminated, mass killing is does not become more acceptable when done with bullets.

[ShamelessHussy]

77. Since they were militarily defeated by then, as well as their allies, I would imagine not many

And they were interested in suing for peace as well.

As far as comparing NUKEs to conventional weapons, I will simply paraphrase what I said above, no comparison.

[The Magistrate]

139. Their Military Leadership, Ma'am, Did Not Think They Were Defeated....

[Confusious]

97. Ah, ShamelessHussy

The fascist Japanese apologist.

How were they defeated? they didn't surrender. Should we have just guessed?

[Confusious]

100. That would be atomics

Nukes wouldn't be invented until 1950.

[-..__...]

75. Yeah...

and not one'a them would have been in harms way by being up front with the troops during an invasion... life is safe and grand when you're in command.

If dropping both bombs would have saved even a single American life... then it was worth it.

[ShamelessHussy]

86. The mass and indiscriminate murder actually killed american's, too

Hiroshima survivor remembers lost U.S. airmen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6239276

FYI

[GodlyDemocrat]

78. Yes, firebombings killed more people than the nukes

[ShamelessHussy]

80. Not true - Nukes Keep Killing and Maiming long after they dentonate

FYI

[GodlyDemocrat]

81. What is your estimate of total dead from Hiroshima/Nagasaki

[ShamelessHussy]

84. The horror of Hiroshima lives on

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/KH05Dh01.html

-snip-

The death count
In Hiroshima, Little Boy's huge fireball and explosion killed 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly. Another 70,000 were seriously injured. As Joseph Siracusa, author of Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction, writes: "In one terrible moment, 60% of Hiroshima… was destroyed. The blast temperature was estimated to reach over a million degrees Celsius, which ignited the surrounding air, forming a fireball some 840 feet <256 meters> in diameter."

Three days later, Fat Man exploded 561 meters above Nagasaki, with the force of 22,000 tons of TNT. According to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered," a web resource on the bombings developed for young people and educators, 286,000 people lived in Nagasaki before the bomb was dropped; 74,000 of them were killed instantly and another 75,000 were seriously injured.

In addition to those who died immediately, or soon after the bombings, tens of thousands more would succumb to radiation sickness and other radiation-induced maladies in the months, and then years, that followed.

In an article written while he was teaching math at Tufts University in 1983, Tadatoshi Akiba calculated that, by 1950, another 200,000 people had died as a result of the Hiroshima bomb, and 140,000 more were dead in Nagasaki. Akiba was later elected mayor of Hiroshima and became an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.
-long snip-
---------------------------

source...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6216930

[The Magistrate]

91. Those Figures Are Flat Nonesense, Ma'am

The Japanese Reconstruction Survey found between the years of 1945 and 1950 a death rate among the Hiroshima population of 1.1 percent per year, which is almost exactly the normal death rate among the Japanese populace.

Records of the rice ration distribution in June of 1945 give a population for Hiroshima of some 255,000 persons resident in the city, Even making allowance for military personnel and forced laborers, it is hard to reasonably drive the population much above 300,000. Given that there is wide agreement on an immediate death toll of between 65,000 and 90,000 persons, accepting the claim of Mr. Akiba would require essentially the entire population of the city to have been dead by 1950, a circumstance which certainly would not have escaped notice at the time, only to be 'discovered' three decades later.

[ShamelessHussy]

106. I'm sure you are an expert on the subject, sir.

Like many others, but I believe most know, even through our own studies, that radiation poisoning is a fact, and that even our own soldiers suffered with it due to prolonged exposure.

You may take exception to his figure but there can be no doubt that the death rate increased with the use of these weapons.

[The Magistrate]

110. That Is Contained In The Numbers Provided, Ma'am

They include as 'immediate' a portion of deaths occurring from radiation poisoning over a several month period subsequent to the explosion; in most counts made at the time this runs to about a third of the total. What is not demonstrated statistically, at least not honestly, is great numbers of people there in excess of normal actuarial expectation dying. The circumstances of exposure are very different from those of cold-blooded tests of radiation effects of soldiery, wherein large numbers were positioned well clear of the blast effect. At Hiroshima, most people involved were within the blast area, and died accordingly, not so many were effected by radiation solely. No one argues radiation does not kill; it is part of the known effect of the weapon: the argument is one of proportions in the actual situation over time.

[ShamelessHussy]

116. Radiation kills and mains long after the initial blast.

As you said that point is not debatable, you may have a quibble with the numbers, however I am inclined to give more weight to the folks who are actually engaged with the research there.

[The Magistrate]

124. The Difference, Ma'am, Between 200,000 and Several Thousands Is No Quibble

You are not giving weight to 'folks who actually engaged with the research', Ma'am. My figures come from research and contemporary tabulations, sourced to entities responsible for actually dealing with the events at the time. Ration records are hard facts, so are tabulations of the reconstruction survey and reports of the local police. You are simply casting about for the highest figure you can find, and make no attempt to reconcile that with known facts of the time. Your only interest is exaggeration, in hopes of carrying by emotion a point you cannot sustain by fact and logic.

[ShamelessHussy]

128. That's right, and I think that the folks on the ground who are studying this are more accurate

than some anonymous internet poster who does not provide ANY sources.

I am not interested in exaggeration I am interested in all the facts to be aired, however some think they are the sole possessors of the truth and wish to belittle and discount others who present facts that may disagree with their hardened view.

I suggest you have a look at this book for more up-to-date information on this topic...

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939

And please see the reviews by folks who are certainly very serious students of this very important topic and think twice before accusing and dismissing others who are engaged and interested in this very serious topic. I am frankly appalled, though not surprised, by some of the tactics taken by you and others who's main aim seems to shut down discussion.


Good day, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

132. Sources Have Been Provided, Ma'am

You can pretend they have not if you wish, but they have been named, and anyone can read the attributions and track the matter down for themselves if they feel my presentation inaccurate.

[Confusious]

98. and millions lost their lives because of the firebombing

and the refusal of the Japanese high command to surrender.

Of course, they saw surrender as the ultimate shame, and saw anyone who did as less then human, and treated them as such, which included americans.

[edbermac]

79. From Mitsuo Fuchida who led the air attack on Pearl Harbor.

"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude of that time, how fanatic they were. They'd die for the Emperor. Every man, woman and child would have resisted the invasion with sticks and stones, if necessary. Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan?" - To Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, 1959

[ShamelessHussy]

82. That's why they surrendered - We agreed to that very important condition

And the Chrysthanthemum Throne remains to this very day as testament to the wisdom of that negotiation... too bad we didn't guarantee that condition sooner, think of how many lives would have been saved.

:cry:

[Confusious]

99. Yes, if we had just let them keep everything they murdered for

just think of how many lives would have been saved!

and we should have hung the Chrysthanthemum Throne by the neck until dead for war crimes like a common thief.

[Vidar]

87. Good find.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. The further we are from contemporary events, the less able we are to answer that question. n/t

[ShamelessHussy]

85. cop out

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. No, it's not.

418,000 Americans had been killed up to that point, and it was not at all obvious where it would end.

When the bomb was dropped, my father was a 21 year old veteran with a steel plate in his head and a toddler on his lap. He spent the rest of his life a pacifist, and he believed that dropping the bomb was probably the wrong thing to do, but he said that if he were Truman, he probably would have made the same choice.

Bear in mind that by 1945, Japan had murdered 6 Million civilians.

There is a good argument to be made that retaliation on this scale was required for atonement. The US would have never been willing to implement the Marshall plan on a society unrepentant for war crimes on a scale which dwarfed anything that the Nazi's had done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Mass_killings

[Unvanguard]

112. Actually, we generally become better able to answer such questions over time.

First, because clear thought is easier with some distance, and second, because evidence and arguments accumulate over time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. No. We are constrained into the frame of "how it turned out".

We are less able to discern the future paths which would have resulted from a given decision at a given instant.

Truman was faced with a situation in which he had the power to immediately end a war against an aggressor who was murdering 500,000 people each month, and dictate a peace treaty which would prevent it from ever happening again.

We have less idea today how long the war would have continued, we have less idea today how many more people would have died.

[Unvanguard]

120. The future was as uncertain to them then as the hypothetical future is to us now.

I see no difference.

The information underlying the planners of the time's judgment of the relative strengths of bombing vs. invasion vs. waiting is still available to us.

[The Magistrate]

137. In Engaging in Hypotheticals, Sir

One thing that seems to be left out of consideration is the potential behavior of U.S. troops in an invasion, once over the beach. It seems to me quite possible the thing could have turned into an exterminationist exercise, point-blank, on our part. There was a good deal of that in the air, in both military and civilian culture at the time.

[TankLV]

88. YES!

It has been discovered that Japan was only WEEKS away from getting their FIRST!!!

I'm glad WE beat them to it!

[The Magistrate]

92. Very Thin Gruel, Ma'am

To take simply the subject of 'peace feelers' to the Soviets. These do not come near to bearing the weight put on them by some. They first took the form of invitation to co-operation in the Pacific between Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union, against the Western powers, in which Imperial Japan would undertake to provide the Soviets with tropical raw materials in exchange for oil, while withdrawing the Kwantung Army from Manchukuo, which the Soviets would recognize as a legitimate state. They developed further to offers to withdraw from European colonial possessions, on condition these became independent states, and acceptance of a temporary disarmament, without Allied occupation of the Home Islands, and with Korea and Formosa remaining Japanese, and conquests on the Chinese mainland remaining under puppet government erected by the Japanese. Even these terms were never formally proposed by the sitting Japanese government, and the Japanese ambassador charged with presenting them took strenuous note of this unofficial and unauthorized character. Even after the Russian invasion of Manchukuo and the detonation of the atomic bombs, the Army still refused to accede to any terms much short of these, being willing to allow a small Allied presence at certain ports, while insisting the Emperor would retain a veto over any political restructuring, and ultimate authority over even commanders of Allied forces on Japanese soil. It required the flat command of the Emperor to surrender, and even this had to be carried out against a palace coup sprung by elements of the Imperial Guard division.

[ShamelessHussy]

104. Look who's talking, Sir.

A single paragraph that does not refute the basic facts presented in the OP.

They were defeated militarily and they were interested in surrender, which they did once their 1 major condition had been meet, otherwise we might still be fighting them.

Having the judgment of most of our military leaders in theater at that time, and the benefit of hindsight, I don't see how it can be viewed any other way than UNNECESSARY, other then for the SHOCK-N-AWE MSG to the whole world, for purely POLITICAL purposes.

Good day, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

109. It Does Not Take Much To Refute It, Ma'am

And economy of force dictates doing no more than is necessary....

None of the initial 'surrender offers' actually were offers of surrender; they were attempts to hang on to conquests, and the militarist order that had commenced the war. The Japanese military did not think it was defeated; it felt it could inflict sufficient casualties on a U.S. invasion of the Home Islands that U.S. military and civilian morale would be shivered, and the terms they desired, retaining their Imperial gains and system, could be then secured. Intercepted and decoded radio traffic left no room to doubt this.

The quotes from various military leaders mean a good deal less than you imagine, for the military politics and inter-service rivalries dictate the positions taken, and these things are pretty much opaque to people who make no study of military affairs at a high level. Naval leaders in particular wished to balk the Army Air Force taking over the role of dominant projector of military power for the U.S., and genuinely considered their blockade and close harrying of Imperial Japan by carrier-borne aircraft was the decisive factor in ruining its prospects and power. Naval leadership in the summer of 1945 was arguing against even invasion of the Home Islands, wanting a decision reached through their efforts of blockade rather than by action of the Army on the ground.

[ShamelessHussy]

113. In some peoples minds apparantly so, Sir.

However, history is usually never so trite and the primary facts stated above remain the same.

1. They were defeated militarily
2. They were interested in negotiating terms of surrender

That being the case I fail to see how that necessitates mass and indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians other than for the political purpose of SHOCK-N-AWE of the world.

I will never argue for such a horror and I am hopeful that we as a country have moved away from such a barbarous mindset that would argue in favor of such senseless killing.

I believe as more folks hear the facts of the time, and especially the thoughts from our military leaders, who were there they, too will have a different opinion from the absurd and stale propaganda that the bombs actually 'saved lives' so this supreme terror and mass murder may never be repeated.

Good day, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

123. You May fail To See It All You Like, Ma'am

And parade your lack of knowledge and understanding as if that constituted a sound plank of argument to your heart's content. You will amuse some, outrage others, but convince no one....

"Say something once, why say it again?"

[ShamelessHussy]

130. Suggestion

For all interested parties in this discussion who wish to actually learn more on this very important topic may I suggest a highly acclaimed book on the subject called...

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939

See the reviews by respected scholars on why they think this is an important and balanced view of the decision making process that took place back then.

I will withdraw from discussing this topic with snarky anonymous folks who's only interest is in disrupting, distracting and demeaning any discussion on this topic.

Good day, Magistrate.

[The Magistrate]

134. Calm Disagreement With You, Ma'am, Based On Knowledge Of Fact, Is Disruption?

Your view is privileged, and never to be disagreed with, even though it is obvious from your comments you are innocent of history and the course and context of events as any babe in the cradle, and have clearly never given so much as six minutes consecutive thought to the actual moral quandaries of warfare?

"The mind wobbles...."

[neverforget]

135. Awesome job, Sir!

[Wizard777]

101. Yes it was necessary to save millions of lives that would have been lost in prolonged hostilities.

No it was not the bombings that ended the War. To the Japanese people The Emperor was also God. They were willing to fight to the death of every last man, woman and child. This was AFTER having one Atomic Bomb dropped on them. The Second atomic bomb didn't change their minds one bit. What ended the war was an agreement not to prosecute The Empire for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[Mudoria]

105. One only has to look at the casualties of both sides..

at places like Iwo Jima or Okinawa to get a small picture of what an invasion of the home island would have been like. The deaths and wounded numbers would have been beyond comprehension. The Japanese population was devoted to the Emperor and thought of him as infallible god, there was no way they were going to surrender until he told them to. Would I have liked that the bombs weren't used? I most certainly would have preferred that they hadn't been. But then I wasn't there and it's always easy to second guess decisions made by people looking back in time. They were the ones with the facts in hand and knowledge of the situation so I defer to their judgment. It's easy to say that the Japanese were eager to surrender now but I'm sure it didn't seem that cut and dried in 1945. They sure didn't appear to be ready to surrender from their actions. Contrary to some opinions perhaps but the defeated do not set the terms for a surrender. The Emperor was allowed to keep his throne as the Japanese wanted, but, and it's a big but, he kept it on the allies terms not theirs. When you start a war in which you slaughter millions, most of whom you do so in horrifying and deliberate fashion, those who end it may deal out out the same to you....

It's interesting that while Germany after the war was forthright in teaching the following generations of the horrors inflicted by the Nazi regime the Japanese still to this day gloss over or deny the atrocities committed by their armes in Asia (the people of Asia have never forgotten or forgiven though). Something to ponder I'd say..

[The Magistrate]

138. Excellent Points, Sir

[ensho]

108. No, not necessary

nt

[ShamelessHussy]

117. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan - Excellent Book on this Subject

http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939

Editorial Reviews
Review
Racing the Enemy is a tour de force -a lucid, balanced, multi-archival, myth-shattering analysis of the turbulent end of World War II. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa sheds fascinating new light on fiercely debated issues including the U.S.-Soviet end game in Asia, the American decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan's frantic response to the double shock of nuclear devastation and the Soviet Union's abrupt declaration of war.
--John W. Dower, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II (20050819)

With this book, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa will establish himself as the expert on the end of the war in the Pacific. This important work will attract a wide readership.
--Ernest R. May, author of Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France (20050802)

In summer 1945 Truman and his advisers set a foreign policy course that demanded American use of doomsday weapons not only against Japan but, indirectly, against humanity itself. In this groundbreaking book, Hasegawa argues that the atomic bombs were not as decisive in bringing about Japan's unconditional surrender as Soviet entry into the Pacific War. His challenging study reveals the full significance of Truman's decision not to associate Stalin with the Potsdam Declaration and offers fresh evidence of how Japan's leaders viewed Stalin's entrance into the war as the decisive factor. Others have shown that Truman missed opportunities to secure Japan's unconditional surrender without an invasion or the nuclear destruction of Japanese cities. But few have so thoroughly documented the complex evasions and Machiavellism of Japanese, Russian, and, especially, American leaders in the process of war termination.
--Herbert P. Bix, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (20050807)

In this landmark study, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa gives us the first truly international history of the critical final months leading to Japan's surrender. Absorbing and authoritative, provocative and fair-minded, Racing the Enemy is required reading for anyone interested in World War II and in twentieth-century world affairs. A marvelously illuminating work.
--Fredrik Logevall, author of Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam (20050808)

The long debate among historians about American motives and Japanese efforts at ending World War II is finally resolved in Racing the Enemy, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's brilliant and definitive study of American, Soviet and Japanese records of the last weeks of the war.
--Richard Rhodes (New York Times Book Review 20050805)

Without doubt the best-informed book in English on Japanese and Soviet manoeuvres in the summer of 1945... provides an international context sorely missing from most previous work. He has mined Japanese and Russian literature and documentation and, despite much that is based on surmise, provides fresh insight into the extraordinary inability of Japanese leaders to surrender, and into Stalin's machinations aimed at maximizing Soviet territorial gains in East Asia.
--Warren I. Cohen (Times Literary Supplement 20050807)

A landmark book that brilliantly examines a crucial moment in 20th-century history... important, enlightening, and unsettling book.
--Jonathan Rosenberg (Christian Science Monitor 20060629)

The most comprehensive study yet undertaken of Japanese documentary sources. The highly praised study argues that the atomic bomb played only a secondary role in Japan's decision to surrender. By far the most important factor, Hasegawa finds, was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima bombing.
--Gar Alperovitz (Philadelphia Inquirer )

One of the first to make a detailed study of the political interplay among the Soviet Union, Japan, and the United States in 1945.
--Alex Kingsbury (U.S. News and World Report )

As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy--and many other historians have long argued--it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final 'shock' that led to Japan's capitulation.
--Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (Los Angeles Times )

might be called the definitive analysis of the U.S. decision to use atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Professor Tsuyoshi Hasegawa of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has mined both Japanese and Soviet sources to produce the first truly international study of the Hiroshima decision.
--Errol MacGregor Clauss (Winston-Salem Journal )

Managing to convey the thought processes, assumptions and biases of the Imperial elite is Hasegawa's greatest achievement...Hasegawa's story is a weird, compelling one, and his case for revising our view of the leadup to VJ Day is overwhelming.
--John Dolan (The Exile )

Hasegawa's study provides the most comprehensive examination yet published on the international factors that shaped the decision-making processes and policies adopted in Washington, Moscow, Potsdam and Tokyo, and which ultimately contributed to Japan's surrender in 1945. Racing the Enemy provides a fresh and multi-faceted perspective on a well studied topic primarily because the author draws on information from Russian, Japanese and American archives and sources. While this study both complements and challenges the well-informed findings of Asada Sadao, Robert Butow, Richard Frank and Leon Sigal, the international framework in which Hasegawa places the surrender of Japan makes this book a compelling read for students and scholars alike.
--J. Charles Schencking (Pacific Affairs )

Will we ever really know why Japan surrendered in World War II? In this judicious and meticulously researched study of the endgame of the conflict, internationalizes (by a thorough look at American, Japanese, and Soviet literature and archives) the diplomatic and political maneuvering that led to Japanese capitulation...No study has yet to bundle together the myriad works on the war's end in such a complete manner...This work should become standard reading for scholars of World War II and American diplomacy.
--Thomas Zeiler (American Historical Review )

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy is a splendid book--the first to examine the end of the Second World War in the Asia Pacific from a comprehensive, international perspective. Based on archival and published materials in Russian, English, and Japanese, it provides a gripping account of the complex diplomatic maneuvers and political battles that culminated in the tumultuous events of August 1945...Hasegawa has written the first truly international history of the end of the Pacific War. By bringing hitherto separate literatures together into a much-needed dialogue, he has recast the contours of the whole debate. Racing the Enemy will remain essential reading for students of foreign policy and international history for many years to come.
--Anno Tadashi (Monumenta Nipponica )

This book is a well-researched and provocative analysis of a fascinating yet neglected aspect of World War II: the American public's conventional assumption is that Japan surrendered to the Allies because of American atomic bombs...Hasegawa's conclusion raises tempting hypothetical questions for further research of this topic, and he provides intriguing answers to them.
--Sean Savage (Historian )

Product Description
With startling revelations, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa rewrites the standard history of the end of World War II in the Pacific. By fully integrating the three key actors in the story--the United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan--Hasegawa for the first time puts the last months of the war into international perspective.

From April 1945, when Stalin broke the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and Harry Truman assumed the presidency, to the final Soviet military actions against Japan, Hasegawa brings to light the real reasons Japan surrendered. From Washington to Moscow to Tokyo and back again, he shows us a high-stakes diplomatic game as Truman and Stalin sought to outmaneuver each other in forcing Japan's surrender; as Stalin dangled mediation offers to Japan while secretly preparing to fight in the Pacific; as Tokyo peace advocates desperately tried to stave off a war party determined to mount a last-ditch defense; and as the Americans struggled to balance their competing interests of ending the war with Japan and preventing the Soviets from expanding into the Pacific.

Authoritative and engrossing, Racing the Enemy puts the final days of World War II into a whole new light.

(20050515)

[ShamelessHussy]

118. A responce to some critisims of the book from another WWII expert

excellent read without all the name calling and craziness this topic generates on online forums...
http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Hasegawa-reply-Bernstein.pdf

[The Magistrate]

147. Mr. Bernstien, Ma'am, Gets A Victory Lap Here, And Without Even The Bother Of Showing Up....

[TheKentuckian]

121. Damn are people still trying to convince us that we should have knuckled under to the Axis powers?

I'd love to have a description of how a war should be conducted by these doves. The tactics you people seem to demand would leave us defeated and cost thousands of American lives.

I live within about a half hours drive of two Ford plants, a GE appliance park, and Fort Know. I'm not stupid enough to expect NOT to be a target if the situation were to come to pass, only a drastically incompetent commander would allow such resources to remain functional in enemy hands. If that is the way you expect to fight then you may as well keep the white flag at the ready.

I'm also tired of the nonsense about the Japanese being ready to surrender, it is such an obvious crock by the anti-America crowd. I mean seriously, they didn't give up the ghost after having the bomb dropped on them. Not even immediately after the second one. That indicates less willingness by miles than is being portrayed. I think many just wish it was the US that took the hit, maybe if we had let them stew a little longer one of Japan's numerous super weapon projects would have developed and they could have hit us. I guess that is the history that many wish for.


The Japaneses had EVERY opportunity for an unconditional surrender and refused, it was not worth a single additional American's life to coddle them and to hell with those that wish to burn our lives to preserve theirs, double for those that would be happy to kill a few score of thousands more Japanese for their own sensibilities.

[ShamelessHussy]

126. Not at all. Just asking why we had to NUKE a defeated nation interested in terms of surrender, TWICE

Did you read the quotes by the military leaders in the OP, they are not usually considered 'doves'?

The Japanese in fact surrendered once their main condition was met.

Think of how many lives would have been saved IF we had entered into serious negotiations by the spring?

Remember, Americans were killed by the indiscriminate mass murder on that day, too.

Hiroshima survivor remembers lost U.S. airmen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6239276

FYI: Accusing folks who are interested in this topic as being 'anti-American' is the same kinda nonsense and slander that Fox News engages in to avoid difficult discussion on serious matters.

[The Magistrate]

136. You Quite Mistake The Degree Of Readiness For Surrender, Ma'am

And you also, for that matter, mistake the nature of 'their main condition'. As envisioned in the final round of Japanese proposals, the Emperor would have had authority over even Allied occupation elements. The 'survival' of the Imperial Throne through the actual surrender bears no relation whatever to the institution of the Emperor as envisioned through Japanese history and laid out in Meiji constitution, and the customary meanings of its terms that had grown up over its life. As a matter of practical fact, that institution was destroyed as anything but a figure-head.

[varelse]

127. I think it's a good question

One to which I still don't have an answer. I guess it depends on your priorities. For at least one DU member, apparently the life of even one American soldier would have been enough to justify it.

[FourScore]

129. They could have dropped it elsewhere

to show the power of the bomb without attacking a peaceful, historic city.

Perhaps a remote bomb factory or something along those lines, followed with a warning that the Japanese should immediately surrender or a city will be next.

[Faryn Balyncd]

133. "What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence...so much as MEMORY"

"What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima."

John Hersey

http://fromthevaultradio.org/home/2006/07/

(K & R, by the way. Thanks for posting.)







Many of our most thoughtful leaders questioned and/or unsuccessfully opposed the decision to use nuclear weapons in 1945.

The reason to remember, and examine, this episode is NOT to "second-guess" Truman with the benefit of "hindsight", or to "revise" history (as so many of those who would prefer that we remain silent have asserted).


The reason to remember is so that we ourselves will not make terrible in our time.









(Those who have been abusing the "Unrecommend" button in their misguided attempts to bury horrible truth do a disservice to DU, America, and the humanity.)



:kick:

[ShamelessHussy]

144. Well said

We should never forget this and try to understand it so, as you said, we never repeat it in our time.

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

140. Most advisers urged it not be used . . . John McCloy/fascist was very close to Truman, however . . .

Should never have been used --

[ControlledDemolition]

142. It was obviously the 'Christian thing' to do!

:sarcasm:

[Third Doctor]

143. Actually

the event of the Soviet Union invading Manchuria and defeating the japanese forces in the area coupled with the dropping of the last A bomb convinced the military authorities in Japan to stop fighting. They would have been encircled and facing invasion on two fronts.

[The Magistrate]

145. More To The Point, Doctor

These things convinced the Emperor at last to flatly order his military leadership to acquiesce to surrender as the Imperial Will.

[ProfessorGAC]

148. Again?!?!?!?

We go through this every August. Geez, what happened, happened. It's now historical fact.

Let it go.
GAC

[ShamelessHussy]

151. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it

May we never repeat this horror in our time.

[ProfessorGAC]

152. And We Haven't

Next time, have a point.
GAC

[ShamelessHussy]

153. You belive you speak for everyone?

Interesting.

And since the use of nukes is probably the most important issues of the ages I doubt many will take your advice.

Good day, sir.

[ProfessorGAC]

156. Don't Put Words In My Mouth

I never said any such thing. But of course, someone with no actual point would resort to putting words in the mouths of others.
GAC

[ShamelessHussy]

157. May I quote you... "And WE Haven't" (emphasis on 'we' added)

And please allow me another try at making my original point, in the hope of making it easier for you to see.

The value of discussing important issues that occurred in the past should be obvious, especially to a professor, as it helps us learn from our past mistakes.

I hope that makes my point, to your original objection ("We go through this every August. Geez, what happened, happened. It's now historical fact.
Let it go."), more plain.

Good day, professor.

[ProfessorGAC]

159. WE HAVEN'T REPEATED HISTORY!

Hence, as is obvious from every post in this thread, you are incapable of comprehension.

The WE was as in WE have not repeated the history of which you are so concerned.

Which is why i accused you of having no point.

You still don't.

You are merely running in circles, hammering the same tired statements in a futile hope that saying it over and over will finally give it meaning.
GAC

[ShamelessHussy]

161. Yet - However, if we forget, ignore or refuse to examine, we might... that is why it is necessary

To continue this discussion, and that was my point to you from the very beginning, though you still seem incapable of seeing it.

However I refuse to discuss this issue with insulting, emotional hot-heads, such as yourself, though you are by no means alone, so I will refrain from anymore comments with you.

Good day, sir.

[The Magistrate]

154. A Pleasure To See You, Professor!

It has been a while.

[ProfessorGAC]

155. Same Here. And Same Here

Have you been ok?
GAC

[kgnu_fan]

158. knr