Originally posted by zeeblebotThat letter is filled with falsehoods of which the supposed comment by Stimson is one. And the USSR had agreed long before that they would enter the war against Japan three months after the Nazis surrendered and that's exactly what they did. Truman was a compulsive liar.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/truman-harry/corr_truman_1952-12-31.htm
"I asked Sec. Stimson which cities in Japan were devoted exclusively to war production. He promptly named Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "
Harry S Truman
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhy? What does the fact that they had a survey after the bombing have to do with the decision to drop the bomb?
i think that if the Survey had bothered to consult no1marauder first, they could have just skipped the Survey.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/fulltext.php?fulltextid=31
"U.S. Strategic
Bombing Survey
THE EFFECTS OF THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS
OF
HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
...
The Survey’s complemen ...[text shortened]... ernment agency where they will be available for further examination and distribution.
..."
EDIT: But since you like the Survey, here's what it said about the military necessity of dropping the atomic bomb:
Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#teotab at the end of page 26.
yes, yes, you're late to the party. that's where the topic got renewed.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=62563&page=5
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've read the same propaganda as you, it seems. However,
"A panel set up by President Truman to study the Pacific war issued a report, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, in July 1946, which declared,
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The report was suppressed, ignored, and shoved down the Memory Hole." ( http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3080 )
But yeah, we're off topic.
Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/truman-harry/corr_truman_1952-12-31.htm
"Dec. 31, 1952
My dear Professor Cate:
Your letter of Dec. 6th 1952 has just now been delivered to me. When the message came to Potsdam that a successful atomic explosion had taken place in New Mexico, there was much excitement and conversation about the effect on the war then in progress with Japan.
The next day I told the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Generallissimo Stalin that the explosion had been a success. The British Prime Minister understood and appreciated what I'd told him. Prime Minister Stalin smiled and thanked me for reporting the explosion to him but I'm sure he did not understand its significance.
I called a meeting of the Sec. of State, Mr. Byrnes, the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, Adm. Leahy, Gen. Marshall, Gen. Eisenhower, the Sec. of the Navy, Adm. King and some others to discuss what should be done with this awful weapon.
I asked Gen. Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokio plain and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that 1/4 million casualties would be the minimum cost as well as an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed.
I asked Sec. Stimson which cities in Japan were devoted exclusively to war production. He promptly named Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We sent an ultimatum to Japan. It was ignored.
I ordered atomic bombs dropped on the two cities named on the way back from Potsdam when we were in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts.
When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray (nine days) before the surrender so as to be in at the settlement. No military constitution was made by the Russians toward victory over Japan. Prisoners were surrendered and Manchuria occupied as was Korea north of the 38th parallel.
[Russia in Asia has been a great liability since].
"
Originally posted by no1marauderit doesn't have anything to do with the decision to drop the bomb. it has a lot to do with revisionists trying to say the bomb shouldn't have been dropped, the japanese would have surrendered anyway, we shouldn't have pushed for unconditional surrender, they never would have gone for that, blah blah blah.
Why? What does the fact that they had a survey after the bombing have to do with the decision to drop the bomb?
it took several hundred US personnel interviewing several hundred Japanese personnel to produce this survey. that's in the intro, but somehow, the last three or four web pages and forum cut-n-pastes i've seen with that 'done-by-December' paragraph failed to include the section from the intro where this procedure for gathering the data is described. i much doubt the report's authors were as unaware when they wrote the paragraph.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo what? Are you, 62 year laters, without doing any of your own research, disputing their conclusion?
it doesn't have anything to do with the decision to drop the bomb. it has a lot to do with revisionists trying to say the bomb shouldn't have been dropped, the japanese would have surrendered anyway, we shouldn't have pushed for unconditional surrender, they never would have gone for that, blah blah blah.
it took several hundred US personnel interviewi ribed. i much doubt the report's authors were as unaware when they wrote the paragraph.
EDIT: Was Eisenhower a revisionist? BTW, another one of Truman's lies was that Eisenhower was at some meeting regarding the decision to drop the bomb. From Mandate For Change, p. 312:
I was not, of course, called upon, officially, for any advice or counsel concerning the matter, because the European theater, of which I was the commanding general, was not involved, the forces of Hitler having already been defeated.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm late? Seems like you clowns are 20 months late!
yes, yes, you're late to the party. that's where the topic got renewed.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=62563&page=5
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[b]I've read the same propaganda as you, it seems. However,
"A panel set up by President Truman to study the Pacific war issued a report, the United States Strategi ...[text shortened]... the 38th parallel.
[Russia in Asia has been a great liability since].
"[/b]
Well I look at it from my Uncles's perspective. He would have been one of the Marines to land on Japan had they conducted an amphibious landing and he told me Thank Goodness Truman used the bomb. It was estimated that maybe 500,000 to one million soldiers would have lost their lives in the invasion considering the fanaticism of the Japanese people in their love for their emperor. He isn't around anymore but he probably lived another sixty years thanks to a Commander in Chief who used a weapon to save the lives of his men. I would imagine his way of thinking was agreed upon by the majority of the troops and families of the troops at the time. One or two Generals in disagreement with Truman doesn't make them right. I would assume the opinion of someone who would have had to invade Japan would carry more weight from some key board punchers 60 years later.
Originally posted by no1marauderit's your conclusion i'm disputing, that a report that took that many resources to produce AFTER the bombing could be included in a discussion of whether the bombing should have taken place.
So what? Are you, 62 year laters, without doing any of your own research, disputing their conclusion?
EDIT: Was Eisenhower a revisionist? BTW, another one of Truman's lies was that Eisenhower was at some meeting regarding the decision to drop the bomb. From Mandate For Change, p. 312:
I was not, of course, called upon, officially, for any advice or ...[text shortened]... as the commanding general, was not involved, the forces of Hitler having already been defeated.
Originally posted by slimjimhttp://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508050714.asp
Well I look at it from my Uncles's perspective. He would have been one of the Marines to land on Japan had they conducted an amphibious landing and he told me Thank Goodness Truman used the bomb. It was estimated that maybe 500,000 to one million soldiers would have lost their lives in the invasion considering the fanaticism of the Japanese people in their l ...[text shortened]... have had to invade Japan would carry more weight from some key board punchers 60 years later.
"These are the debates that matured in the relative peace of the postwar era. But in August 1945 most Americans had a much different take on Hiroshima, a decision that cannot be fathomed without appreciation of the recently concluded Okinawa campaign (April 1-July 2) that had cost 50,000 American casualties and 200,000 Japanese and Okinawa dead. Okinawa saw the worst losses in the history of the U.S. Navy. Over 300 ships were damaged, more than 30 sunk, as about 5,000 sailors perished under a barrage of some 2,000 Kamikaze attacks.
And it was believed at least 10,000 more suicide planes were waiting on Kyushu and Honshu. Those who were asked to continue such fighting on the Japanese mainland — as we learn from the memoirs of Paul Fussell, William Manchester, and E. B. Sledge — were relieved at the idea of encountering a shell-shocked defeated enemy rather than a defiant Japanese nation in arms.
About a month after Okinawa was finally declared secure came Hiroshima. Americans of that age were more likely to wonder not that the bomb had been dropped too early, but perhaps too late in not avoiding the carnage on Okinawa — especially when by Spring 1945 there was optimism among the scientists in New Mexico that the successful completion of the bomb was not far away. My father, William Hanson, who flew 39 missions over Japan on a B-29, was troubled over the need for Okinawa — where his first cousin Victor Hanson was killed in the last hours of the battle for Sugar Loaf Hill — when the future bomb would have forced Japanese surrender without such terrible loss of life in 11th-hour infantry battles or even more horrific torching of the Japanese cities.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebothere, i'll restate it for you, no1m:
it doesn't have anything to do with the decision to drop the bomb. it has a lot to do with revisionists trying to say the bomb shouldn't have been dropped, the japanese would have surrendered anyway, we shouldn't have pushed for unconditional surrender, they never would have gone for that, blah blah blah.
it took several hundred US personnel interviewi ...[text shortened]... ribed. i much doubt the report's authors were as unaware when they wrote the paragraph.
it's your conclusion i'm disputing, that a report that took that many resources to produce AFTER the bombing could be significant in a discussion of whether the decision to drop the bombing.
obviously, no such survey was possible prior to the bombing.
and the survey was taken from a defeated military. you might well have expected a different answer prior to august 1945.