GT said:
["First of all, the A-bomb had already been tested. Your contention that the choice to drop the bomb was in order to test it is nonsense."]
- What I meant was that the US wanted to test the A-bomb on a City and its occupants and that was the only opportunity that they had.
That simply is not true. The USA had two motives behind dropping the A-bomb:
1) Force the Japanese to accept immeadiate unconditional surrender.
2) Demonstrate to the Soviets both that we had the A-Bomb and that we were willing to use it. This was necessary to stop Soviet agression and territorial expansion in Asia and in Europe.
GT said:
"The dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best thing that could have happened to the Japanese "
- Tell it to the surviving victims with their cancer and their children that are born with cancer!!
Cancer rates are not as high as one would expect, though they are higher than other populations. It might be noted also that a large number of people who worked and lived around the Oakridge and other nuclear materials locations suffer higher than normal cancer rates too.
This has to be weighed against the cost in lives of continued conventional bombing, which would have outmeasured this several times over. It has to be weighed against the cost had the Soviets ended up occupying at least part of Japan as well.
GT said:
- I believe that you have read some other documents than I have, so I will not insult you as you did! This is some quotes from that report:
GT, I think you have read only one side of the argument. The way you presented your argument is insulting.
GT said:
"The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price."
The Japanese decision to seek a surrender through the Soviets was mis-guided. The Soviets had no desire to see Japan surrender before they were fully embroiled in that theater of the war. What the Japanese were talking with the Soviets about is totally irrelevant because the Soviets were not trying to broker a peace with the USA on their behalf. How can use the Japanese attempt to have the Soviets broker a peace with the USA as an argument why the USA should not have used the A-bomb on Japan when the Soviets never approached the USA on Japan's behalf?
GT said:
"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."
You should have started this paragraph with the sentance "Based on a detailed investigation of all evidence
after the facts". The testimony of those Japanese leaders is also highly suspect, and besides that it was not available to US leadership at the time so it is irrelevant anyway. Japan had stated over and over that they would never surrender - that it was against thier code of honor to do so - and that they would die to the last man, woman, and child in defense of the Emperor.
It is not fair to hold US leadership accountable for not having considered information that was not available to them at the time.
Besides, had it taken until mid-November to secure an unconditional surrender:
1) many more Japanese would have died from conventional bombing than died from the A-bombs.
2) the Soviets would surely have occupied all of Manchuria and Korea, and probably Hokkaido and perhaps part of Honshu as well.
Adding these two things together, Japan would surely have suffered at least an additional 2 to 3 million casualties, mostly civilian. But more than that, the cost in terms of the future of Japanese society would have been tremendous. It probably would not have survived.
GT said:
"We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender."
Regards
GT
This last bit is pure BS. Again, I think you need to study Japanese history a little more. Japan was effectively ruled by the victors of a military coup with the Emperor acting as their sometimes willing and sometimes not so willing puppet. Most of Japanese leadership wanted to continue the war until the USA agreed to a less than unconditional surrender. They wanted at the very least protection for both the Emperor and themselves from post war retribution, and they wanted to prevent or minimize any occupation of Japan. Your last sentance says it all....
"
The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender."
This shows an utter lack of understanding of the situation at the time. The only "terms" of surrender were
no terms at all! And that was not going to change. Nothing short of unconditional surrender was acceptable.
This was critically important. The USA had declared and insisted this be the goal both against Germany and Japan. In this way, after the war, the German's and Japanese could not deny the generosity of how they would be treated. They would not be enslaved, even though they sought to enslave others. Their economies would be rebuilt, even though they sought to tear down and pillage the economies of others. And in the case of Japan, the Emperor would be spared, not because the USA had to spare him as part of a negotiated peace, but simply as a sign of respect for the Japanese culture and as bridge to quell the animosity of a proud but vanquished peoples.
The Marshall plan was the most generous treatment of vanquished foes in history, but it required uncondtional surrender. And it required that Japan surrender without being invaded, otherwise US losses would have been far too high for the American people to ever accept rebuiliding Japan as an industrial power.
=S=
Lunatic