Why not "besiege" Japan?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi DocHawkeye,

You are still failing to answer the question.

You posted, ".....but the idea that the Americans were using the A-Bomb to diminish the suffering of the Japanese is an apocryphal invention of post-war politics to me."

As things stand, without some supporting evidence, the only "apocryphal invention" is in danger of being your own!

I ask again, what is your source for this proposition?

I am presuming that you have some evidence, so what is it?

Cheers,

Sid

[OpanaPointer]

The "invention" would be the Allies used the bombs just to see what they could do.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi OpanaPointer,

Perhaps, but that is not what DocHawkeye wrote.

Cheers,

Sid.

[OpanaPointer]

Hi OpanaPointer,

Perhaps, but that is not what DocHawkeye wrote.

Cheers,

Sid.

Just proposing something that I've actually seen.

[Hanny]

Hi DocHawkeye,

You are still failing to answer the question.

You posted, ".....but the idea that the Americans were using the A-Bomb to diminish the suffering of the Japanese is an apocryphal invention of post-war politics to me."

As things stand, without some supporting evidence, the only "apocryphal invention" is in danger of being your own!

I ask again, what is your source for this proposition?

I am presuming that you have some evidence, so what is it?

Cheers,

Sid

He is using Trumans own words against him, the first public reference by Truman on saving Jap lives was April 6, 1949 the president told a group of new Democratic senators and representatives that he "made that decision because I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved by making that decision, and some 3[00,000] or 400,000 of the enemy would be saved by making that decision".

Before that point in time he only refernced saving US lives. On August 9, 1945 "A grateful nation, hopeful that this new weapon will result in the saving of thousands of American lives, feels a deep sense of appreciation for your accomplishment".“My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan.”

When he asked for casualty evaluation report, from which to make his choice to use nukes, he only asked for US losses. When given that figure, he made his choice to drop them.

[Hanny]

I doubt Anglo American Leaders and citizens were ever much concerned with the suffering of Japanese peoples one way or the other. Perhaps a minority of them with humanist lines of thought of were, but the idea that the Americans were using the A-Bomb to diminish the suffering of the Japanese is an apocryphal invention of post-war politics to me.

The atomic bomb was considered a big fire bomb at the time. Singling it out ex post facto is just revisionism.

General Groves was testifying before the Special Senate Committee on Atomic Energy, he was asked to explain his understanding of radiation and death. With a sufficiently powerful dose of radiation, Groves said, death could be nearly instantaneous. In cases of minor exposure, death might well result, too, but without undue suffering. “In fact,” said Groves, “they say it is a very pleasant way to die.”

He failled to mention HARRY DAGHLIAN who was exposed to radiation when he fubled the device, exposing himself to radiation, after 2 days of agony all his skin died and his organs began to shut down, he was dosed with morphine and in a coma till his organs dissolved, dying after 25 days.

He failled to mention he hired Dr. Stafford Warren, a radiologist from the University of Rochester, as the Chief Medical Officer of the Manhattan Engineer District in 1942. The health division had three main objectives: to protect the health of Project workers, protect the public from any risks arising from the operation of the Project, and study radiation hazards in order to establish tolerance doses and devise methods of treatment. To do that they, without the patients consent, experimented on 30 persons, some died within months, others did not. All familes ofn the 30 patients recieved compensation when the files became declasified in 1995 and congres was rather upset with how the military used people like that.

Bomb was dropped at height, to maximise the effect of radiation on the target. Scientest and generals knew what radiation did in 1945, after Daghlain was exposed they ran tests on terminal ill to see its effects.

In Germany they brought the victims to the ovens. The USA brought the ovens to the victims.

https://www.usnews.com/news/special-rep ... an-wrought
Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.


Revisionism, seems its very popular in the USA.

[Hanny]

As long as the Japanese could feed themselves and remained in thrall to their existing power structures, why would they "beg for peace"?

Er becauase they already were seeking to surrender on the sole condition of the Emperor remaining, and the the USA code breakers knew this and so did the USn politicians.

The merit of the atom bombs was that they brought about a speedy conclusion and very probably saved a large number of lives, both Allied servicemen and especially Japanese civilians.

Cheers,

Sid.

Except that nonsense as acording to the japanese the nukes had no such effect, it was SU entry into the war that had that effect, and acording to POTUS, Japanese military of civilian losses did not come into the matter.

[Hanny]

People complain about the number of dead at the bomb sites, but seem willing to accept ten to twenty million dead civilians.

Because thats the fastest rate humans have died in war in the history of the human race. No one was predicting 10 to 20 million civilian dead before the bomb was giving to go order, thats just revisionism.

"Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified.'' JFC Fuller

The short, sharp, devastating method of applying every means available to end the war was more merciful than having babies die in mountain villages far from the war.

So why do chemicial attacks then?, why no poison gas?, you really think the Twin Towers was an act of mercy by the fanatics who thought its ok to wage war on a city of civilians?.

[Hanny]

You really need to so some reading on this. I can recommend 10-11 books.

Ditto for you , sonny.

[Hanny]

One thing I have always wondered about, if there was no atomic bomb, why not just besiege Japan?

Sieges take time, in effect a partial siege was already underway.
If no nukes, what happens if they surrender to SU? what political problems will the US have, if the Japs publicly surrender to the SU when it overuns them in china.

[LineDoggie]

Except that nonsense as acording to the japanese the nukes had no such effect, it was SU entry into the war that had that effect, and acording to POTUS, Japanese military of civilian losses did not come into the matter.

Just exactly how was the RKKA going to invade mainland Japan?

their invasion of the Kuriles only came off due to Lend Lease US landing craft and still was not a given win. It wasnt a river crossing you comprehend?

Even the Soviet Air force was not set up for strategic operations but for tactical flying artillery

[Hanny]

Just exactly how was the RKKA going to invade mainland Japan?

I did not say they would, or was needed, i pointed out that Japan could surrender to the SU, when it broke the non agression pact and overun the japs in China.

Japanese Supreme Council for the Direction of the War held on May 11, 12, and 14, a formal Council decision was taken stating:
While Japan is fighting with the U.S. and U.K., once the Soviets enter the war Japan will face inevitable defeat; therefore, whatever happens in the war with the U.S. and U.K., Japan has to try as much as possible to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war.

UK intel apreciation handed to WSC at Potsdam: [W]hen Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.

But since you ask, SU undertook amphib operation at Kerch without any LL, alnding 75000 and achieving operation success, 30 extra Landing craft was nice and all, but SU did not treally require them,On Aug 16 Stalin asked Truman if he objected to SU invasion of Hokkaido which was set for 18th, (https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/122340) Truman objected as he did not want Japn occuppied by SU. Do you understand that?
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/122334
Soviet air attack plans.
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/122335
Invasion plans.

[OpanaPointer]

You really need to so some reading on this. I can recommend 10-11 books.

Ditto for you , sonny.

I started reading in 1964.

[OpanaPointer]

Except that nonsense as acording to the japanese the nukes had no such effect, it was SU entry into the war that had that effect, and acording to POTUS, Japanese military of civilian losses did not come into the matter.

Just exactly how was the RKKA going to invade mainland Japan?

their invasion of the Kuriles only came off due to Lend Lease US landing craft and still was not a given win. It wasnt a river crossing you comprehend?

Even the Soviet Air force was not set up for strategic operations but for tactical flying artillery

The Marshal commanding the Russian forces attacking the Japanese in China told Stalin he could put three divisions on Hokkaido by the 24th of August. Stalin canceled that on the 21st. I'm sure the assets from Project Hula would have been part of the transport.

[R Leonard]

You should try to provide somewhat more than half the information. This "invasion" of Hokkaido, the Soviets, with remarkable foresight, were planning on launching from a port on Sakhalin that they had not completely secured. Their plan was to move a rifle battalion (a battalion!!!) at a time across the La Perouse Strait. Note the proposed "invasion" was from Sakhalin, not the Asian mainland. Stationed on north end of Hokkaido, at least from the information provided to SCAP by the Japanese, was an infantry division . . . hmmm, battalions, essentially coming ashore in motorboats and longboats, while they lasted, piecemeal, against a division. That might have been interesting.

One might note that one of the things worked out at Yalta, besides ceding the entire island of Sakhalin to the Soviets and making the 38th parallel as the dividing line of occupation areas on the Korean Peninsula, was that the demarcation line between the Soviets and the US with regard to the Japanese home islands was, surprise, that same strait. Remember the Elbe River? So, when Stalin informed Truman of the plan, he was gently, perhaps not so gently, reminded of that dividing line. as you correctly noted It was Stalin, himself, who called off the operation. One might also note that the proposed Soviet operation was to occur after the Japanese announced their acceptance of the Potsdam terms . . . nothing like running out the clock. I guess just to keep busy the Soviets spent the next three or four weeks invading islands in the Kurile Islands, shooting it out with the mini-garrisons stationed there, threatening with gunnery passes any USAAF over flights and eventually expelling the Japanese inhabitants . . . perhaps a foretaste of what might have been in store for Hokkaido.

Besides, there was already a USN presence lurking about on the island of Hokkaido since 15 July 1945.