Truman wanted to end the war quickly before Stalin could make any claim to Japan.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
There was likely a different angle. The Japanese had already surrendered. But the surrender was not satisfactory to Truman, relating to Hirohito’s level of power, something to do with being considered a descendant of the gods. But it was more likely that the bomb wasn’t ready yet and Truman wanted to use it to scare the Russians.
Think you are wrong about the early surrender but right on about scaring Stalin et al. Of course, it just scared them into getting their own nukes, so…
The Japanese had not surrendered before Hiroshima, nor did they surrender after it. They had not surrendered after the earlier fire-bombing of Tokyo either. It took the second bomb at Nagasaki to seal the deal.
And there is some truth to the Russian angle because everyone with a brain new that Stalin was in the process of collecting the pieces of Hitler’s empire and was eyeballing further expansion, having designs on Japan no doubt in part from the Russo-Japanese war a few decades earlier.
Patton had already made it clear that the war should be carried into Russia ‘now’ while they still can and placed Truman on notice that he could lose everything without decisive action. No doubt this factored into forcing quick total surrender in Japan, and I believe it is fair to say that those two bombs spared them from decades of Stalinism. God knows what the Korean war would have looked like with a communist Japan next door.
Of course the Atomic bombs would be Truman’s only show of strength as he would quickly become a rubber stamp for the communist infiltrated state department and proceed to lose everything else, East Germany, Poland, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, North Korea, China etc. For the countries that Stalin did not steal outright, he managed to screw up the governments with Communist parties and coalition governments.
So one would be hard-pressed to state exactly how we won the war since the lion share was passed from Hitler to Stalin anyway. To the state department I guess WWII was really about liberating France, Holland, Belgium, Italy.
The Japanese had surrendered but it was not recognized by the Americans.
Patton was an idiot.
I believe it is fair to say that those two bombs spared them from decades of Stalinism.
Belief isn’t fair game in history. That only counts in history revision.
I never thought I’d see the bombs portrayed as an act of mercy to the Japanese. Rah rah to the virtues of nuclear bombs.
Say it over and over and still no-one will believe you including most Japanese. Facts are stubborn things.
Well, so says you, and a very small cadre of others. Even the enemy had ultra high praise for him. I guess if political correctness is your game, fine, then your comment makes perfect sense. But personally I despise political correctness as it is nothing more than a voluntary form of slavery. Homey don’t play that! But believe whatever you want.
That act of mercy is your inaccurate description of what I said. Whether I die by fire or prompt radiation, fireball, shockwave, cancer, tsunami or gunshot, I fail to see anything merciful in a Hobson’s choice. But I can offer this: try on the shoes worn by decision makers at the Pentagon and the White House and you might see that mercy carries very little weight (ok, Colin Powel Gulf War exception). The decisions usually involve trying to bring our boys home alive whenever possible. Certainly you see the utility of sending one airplane to do the same damage that hundreds of sorties had during the firebombing. The Tokyo firewind had a higher body count but the nukes are what you focus on (with a bit of obsession, here and at WUWT). You’re not Bonnie Raitt are you (or Jackson Browne, John Hall, Pete Seeger …) 🙂
Seriously though (and no offense meant), please understand something: The USA was already positioning troops for the Japanese invasion which would have dwarfed Normandy, some say one million men initially with USA casualties eventually approaching another half million added to the quarter million dead and dying by that point, more than DOUBLING the previous four years total, so this is no trivial discussion. The Japanese casualties would have been into the multi-millions, probably half of the adult male population in a Bushido Kamikaze last stand. Not to mention probable civilian mass suicide, already seen at Saipan. Add a potential Russian co-invasion and Japan would have been a tuly horrific killing field. So the White House authorizes the two single bombs and ends it quick and this is controversial? Not to me.
We only won WW II because of the Russians – who paid far higher costs than we did – so they were bound to get their share of the pie. And it is highly debatable that Russia got the “lion’s share” of the proceeds because the real prize was the oil of the Middle East and the U.S. essentially took over that region from the dying British Empire.
Sure Russia got Poland and Estonia and all that but, really, so what? They didn’t matter in the big picture… but in the long run the results speak for themselves. The USSR went bankrupt before the USA so the USA won… for a couple of decades.
You’re the only person who believes that Russia had anything to do with any of our victories. FDR’s crew spread this propaganda to cover for his useless summits with Stalin. And as far as the Russian cost paid, just ask any survivor or descendant. The high price was from Stalin’s mismanagement of his armed forces. His paranoic decimation of the Officer corps prior to the war and his overall utter incompetence, best illustrated by making a deal with Hitler and still being surprised when he double-crossed him. Stalin was the most inept commander imaginable. He only survived by having an endless supply of bodies to through in the way of hundreds of German divisions. That, and a lucky streak of global warming 😉
Not a clue of what you mean by this, except that it is the type of stuff seen at left-wing rallies attacking the bad oil companies. I believe the opposite point of view has far more merit. After the war all of the *potential* oil producers achieved independence and many would argue that in itself was a problem as they were not ready for it and required strong western guidance. Kinda like children hitting the lottery.
The shorter list would be one describing what the Stalin/Warsaw/Communist bloc did not get. Countless young Americans were buried in graves marked and unmarked all over the world liberating places they never heard of from little towns in Europe to specks of sand in the gigantic pacific ocean. In my opinion, allowing anything that we died for to fall into communist hands (without a fight!) was a tragedy.
The Japanese had not “already surrendered”. Some in the government had, unauthorized, put out a few diplomatic feelers for what would best be called a “cease fire”, with Japanese forces withdrawing from foreign territories, but with the regime still in full control of the Japanese home islands. Small surprise that this was not acceptable to the US and its allies, any more than leaving the Nazis in charge of Germany itself would have been.
Wow,
a debate here that has various points of view that are all viable! I AM impressed!
I have been saying that the Bomb was dropped because of having to share Japan with Russia, since the early 80’s which is possibly what would have happened if surrender had been delayed by months. US had a strong claim since Russia had not been at war with Japan, so it would have been hard for Stalin to have made a claim for even 1/4 of Japan, but I am sure he would have tried. Joe was nothing if not arrogant and it had served him well till then.
My understanding is the Japan had for weeks been making offers of surrender, for almost any terms except unconditional, with the key point being the demotion of emperor from god level. US would only accept unconditional surrender.
came to this site cause i was wondering why specifically hiroshima and nagasaki was targeted. why not nuke tokyo? won’t they surrender immediately, unconditionally after the loss of the capital? what makes US commanders choose those 2 sites anyway?