It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japanese official: Dropping the A-bomb was inevitable

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
The only reason the surrender of Japan went so peacefully is beacause of the Emperor. Talk to a vet who was there right after the war if you doubt me. The Emperor was almost considered divine and had to be obeyed.


The only reason the war against Japan ever started is because Truman and his 'gang' did not want to share their imperialistic gains and decided that they were in favourable position to blockade Japan and end their strategic ambitions. The deal that the Truman offered Japan ( after the nuclear explosions) is almost EXACTLY the same deal the Japanese offered to accept MONTHS earlier with he main point of contention at the time [the emperors 'station'] now being resolved in Japans favour. Why did the US not accept the terms earlier and why did they keep changing it just enough to keep Japan fighting? I have studied my history and until the majority of the people on this thread start doing so don't expect much other than what you are now reading.

[quopte]No, when they discovered that their own homeland was being vaporized city by city is when they got the message.

Two cities of no strategic significance with no evidence in sight that the US had more such bombs to drop. The Japanese surrendered long before the full effects of the Nuclear detonations could be understood or before it was clear if there were any more to come; the surrendered because of the VERY immediate threat of losing their possessions in Manchuria without the benefit of employing it around the bargaining table.


Wow, I will leave you to your beliefs on that one.


Why? Object all you want and a i will just have to explain it by using the history books you have apparently not read.


History proves otherwise.


History can prove whatever you like if you don't actually read any of it.


Yes Russia did the yeomans work in the war, but Truman in no way could have stopped it, nor was he responsible for every casualty of that war.


Truman ensured that Britain could go on fighting and in so doing involved America in a European war while doing his utmost to force the Japanese into a situation they could not extricate themselves from without serious loss of face and land or involving themselves in a war with a country they had little chance of fighting without a German ally Truman managed to provide them.


And if you want to really look at an immoral and inhumane man Look into your own Russian leader in WWII. Stalin was a maniac.


My own Russian leader? I am SOUTH AFRICAN. i don't live in Russia and as far as i am aware i have absolutely ZERO Russian heritage. I don't like Stalin or Lenin or any of the later versions and i don't understand why i must , according to you, love Stalin to understand how devious and inhuman Truman's actions were.


Very debatable, again ask a vet who was there about the arms caches they found all over the place.


I can read actual honest to go books and there were not enough rifles for even the trained men so PLEASE do not offend the historic record, or me, by inventing 'facts' that suits you.


We can make an educated guess, which is what the Generals did in 1945. Take a look at the battle of Okinawa, the first homeland Island of Japan that was attacked.

en.wikipedia.org...


I know about Okinawa and the casualties and the reckless way in which Japanese defenses were attacked head on for no good reason at all. The fact is that in modern wars you need rifles and bullets and those are not made from sand or by wishing for them. The Japanese were simply fast running out and Okinawa absorbed a significant proportion of their last means to effectively resist ( inflict casualties) invasion or attacks anywhere.


Don't try and tell me that the Japanese wouldn't have fought harder on the Big Islands.


They might have tried but 'trying' without artillery, armor, or rifle ammunition in general is simply not good enough. Japan could not have gone on like that and this was VERY evident when they surrendered before anyone even set foot on one of the four major home Islands.

If the US did not want to risk a invasion they could have just let Stalin do as the SU were both able and willing to conduct such a operation in late 1945. The Atomics bombs were simply not required to force the Japanese surrender and there is absolutely no reason to have tested these weapons that might have made entire areas of Japan uninhabitable for decades. At that time the after effects were not know and no sane person should accept the inhuman claim that this was all done to save American or Japanese lives when Truman proved himself rather indifferent to such apparently unimportant issues.

Stellar




posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foxe
Japan was also within weeks of their own nuclear weapon working...even some on the team claim (unsupported) that they tested in South Korea's coast line.


Well bring me the source material so i can look at those claims; it's certainly not what my reading so far have led me to believe...


I stand by my remarks of previous post.


You would yes...


EDIT: I do want to mention, Japan was months from having thousands of jets in working, war operation.


So why did the thousands of German jets not save Germany? Care to explain where these planes would have been flying from, and i am sure they did not exist but lets pretend, or who would have been flying them? Why did the Japanese only have two operation jets in August 1945 and why were they still busy flight testing them?


They would have wiped our navy off the ocean. Then took the fighting to us, island by island.


They got close in 1941 but even then they could not manage it so how are we supposed to believe that Japan could do it without a navy?


Our nuclear weapons were delivered via high alt B-29, however, Jets could get to them. Thus, eliminating the nuclear threat.


Bombers are protected and jets can and were shot down by conventional fighter aircraft or by the bombers defensive fire. Bringing down a four engine bomber is no mean feat even with a well trained aggressive fighter pilot flying a plane with a few 20 mm cannons and plenty of ammunition..


All jet factories were under mountains, our A-Bombs were not powerful enough to hurt those factories.

I stand by my remarks.


This is a alternative topics and theories forum but standing by one's remarks , however admirable ( do you have a sword to fall on later?) does not do you much good when your both you and your remark finds yourself so very far off the beaten track.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Now I could be nieve and suggest they wer elooking for ways to protect the radiation victems, but the reality is that they wanted to see what the short / lonbg term implications were in an city environment.


Exactly. Japan was the perfect occasion to test the new toys on human beings.


What exactly did you expect them to do? They had already left people in place in the fallout zone of the Trinity blast. (Several ranchers were missed in the inital sweep and were left in place to study)


Doesn't surprise me.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


The Japanese took most of the islands unopposed.


Well you can argue it takes arrogance but as far as i am concerned it's just a fact and one i can prove with not much effort.

Stellar

So you are agreeing that the Japanese took basically every island weather it was inhabited or was of any strategic value. And you quoted my reference as to what the U.S. did for there offensive campaign to reclaim them. So you do agree that the U.S. did not take every island held by the Japanese?
Ok this fact that the Islands taken by force prior to the end of the war were of low strategic value that you can prove, where is the proof? I listed my reference that the U.S. did not take every island, just those that had least opposition with the necessary strategic value. So where is your proof?



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The only reason the war against Japan ever started is because Truman and his 'gang' did not want to share their imperialistic gains and decided that they were in favourable position to blockade Japan and end their strategic ambitions.


Truman was not the President when the war with Japan began. You seem to have a very strange concept about war. You suggesting after 5 years of war "sharing"? :shk:


I have studied my history and until the majority of the people on this thread start doing so don't expect much other than what you are now reading.


Yes you have studied history, but I suspect its of the revisionist sort. No matter. I have also studied the era with a focus on energy and the development of the Atomic bomb, so in this area I feel I am pretty well versed.



Two cities of no strategic significance with no evidence in sight that the US had more such bombs to drop. "


Really now? Setting aside the fact that destroying entire cities was part and parcel with the acceptable standards of war during that time (its sheer folly to try to slap on present day morality and values with actions in the past...... But then again its part and parcel for the revisionist historian
) Five cities were actually chose. All had strategic value of some sort or another.

Kyoto: Industry, port, and population base
Hirsohima: Army depot, port (It also had a good radar target and it was felt the surrounding mountains could help focus the blast.
Yokohama (Same reasons as above)
Kokura Arsenal (This one is self explanatory eh)
Nagasaki and Niigata as well.

They did discuss taking out the emperor but that was quickly shelved.

Secretary of War Stimson nixed Kyoto after it was chosen as the first target due to its cultural signifigance

So to imply that the cities chose were throwaways is simplitic at best.



know about Okinawa and the casualties and the reckless way in which Japanese defenses were attacked head on for no good reason at all. The fact is that in modern wars you need rifles and bullets and those are not made from sand or by wishing for them.


Hmmm not just on Okinawa eh? Almost every island they took faught bitterly.


The Japanese had demonstrated in each case they would not surrender and they would fight to the death. It was expected that resistance in japan with thier home ties would be even more severe.
---General Marshall


Okinawa was an important part of the island hopping strategy. To date you have gone out of your way to point out what you seem to percieve as a flawed strategy of chopping the Greated East Asian Co Properity Shprere down to size yet offer no other solution. let me quess, the US was to sail the seventh fleet right into Tokyo Bay and declare victory?



If the US did not want to risk a invasion they could have just let Stalin do as the SU were both able and willing to conduct such a operation in late 1945.


Okay how exacly were the Soviets supposed to invade the home islands. Please enlighten me on thier huge Gator navy they possesed in this time frame? Yes they could have sent bombers out but invade? Not likely.



The Atomics bombs were simply not required to force the Japanese surrender


The Japanese were sent the text of the Potsam Declaration which in essence called for unconditional surrender at 0700 July 27th. It was rejected:

As for the government, it does not find any important value to it, and there is no other recource but to ignore it entirely and resolutely fight for the successful conclution of the war ----- Prime Minister Baron Kantaro Suzuki

You have mad mention several times in your posts that YOU have read history and implied that the rest of us have not (At least those opposed to your version of events). I am begining to wonder. Revisonist history is always 20/20 depending on ones point of view. If you look at the events of WWII in the context of the times, it really paints a different picture eh?


[edit on 7/2/07 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
They might have tried but 'trying' without artillery, armor, or rifle ammunition in general is simply not good enough. Japan could not have gone on like that and this was VERY evident when they surrendered before anyone even set foot on one of the four major home Islands.


Wow you are 100% right......... oh wait, lets take a look at Iraq circa 2007? Please explain how these poor under equipped rebels are bascially holding off the most high tech and power army the world has ever seen?

Couple the fanatism of Al Queda terrorist with a largely mountainous country, and a population willing to fight down to the last man. At least in Iraq some are sypathetic to our aims. How many in WWII Japan would have been?



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Truman was not the President when the war with Japan began. You seem to have a very strange concept about war. You suggesting after 5 years of war "sharing"? :shk:


I knew i was typing too fast and thinking too little.
I were referring to what Roosevelt did when he followed the Rockefeller advice and started the virtual blockade against Japan.


Yes you have studied history, but I suspect its of the revisionist sort. No matter. I have also studied the era with a focus on energy and the development of the Atomic bomb, so in this area I feel I am pretty well versed.


I started off as everyone does but then realised that some parts did not make sense and went about finding out why and what really happened.


Really now? Setting aside the fact that destroying entire cities was part and parcel with the acceptable standards of war during that time (its sheer folly to try to slap on present day morality and values with actions in the past......


Sure.


But then again its part and parcel for the revisionist historian
) Five cities were actually chose. All had strategic value of some sort or another.


Neither of those bombed had any REAL strategic value beside the fact that they contained people and that the cities were not bombed before. I believe the fact those those cities contained unsuspecting people going about their business may very well have been what they meant by 'strategic value' so i may know where they , and possibly you , come from.


Kyoto: Industry, port, and population base


A 'population' base? So basically they wanted to kill people? A port , in Japan? Wow... How many fishing vessels were operated from that port and how many cargo ships did Japan have left at that time?


Hirsohima: Army depot, port (It also had a good radar target and it was felt the surrounding mountains could help focus the blast.


If the army depot was of significance they would have already bombed it and the same can be said for all of the vague allusions of 'importance'.


Yokohama (Same reasons as above)



Kokura Arsenal (This one is self explanatory eh)


Which must be why it was not in fact bombed? Logic in action....


Nagasaki and Niigata as well.


What? All spared because they were important targets that had to be obliterated by a 'new' weapon? Why not use the atomic weapon over what was left of the larger industrial centers? If you want to win wars win it completely but don't pretend that a weapon test on unsuspecting civilians counts as evidence that they wanted to 'win'.


They did discuss taking out the emperor but that was quickly shelved.


Why i don't know but lets leave that there.


Secretary of War Stimson nixed Kyoto after it was chosen as the first target due to its cultural signifigance


And the Japanese Christians in Nagasaki did not have 'culture'?


So to imply that the cities chose were throwaways is simplitic at best.


They were not 'throwaway's but the fact that they were not bombed up to that point basically proves that they were not doing much if anything to aid the Japanese war effort.


Hmmm not just on Okinawa eh? Almost every island they took faught bitterly.


The Japanese had demonstrated in each case they would not surrender and they would fight to the death. It was expected that resistance in japan with thier home ties would be even more severe.
---General Marshall


But a man can not fight beyond his strength and without the modern implements of war wanting to resist is not enough.


Okinawa was an important part of the island hopping strategy.


And i did not say it was not...


To date you have gone out of your way to point out what you seem to percieve as a flawed strategy of chopping the Greated East Asian Co Properity Shprere down to size yet offer no other solution. let me quess, the US was to sail the seventh fleet right into Tokyo Bay and declare victory?


I have not gone out my way and have just pointed out what actual scholars have on numerous occasions and in many books. If you are not aware of them that's too bad and what does a few tens of thousands of dead marines matter any ways when you were losing tens of thousands of bomber crew members ( rather higher qualifications) in the skies over Germany. I guess i could go look for the date i collected on which islands could have been by-passed but i wonder why i am always the one doing all the work when i am not even claiming anything strange.


Okay how exacly were the Soviets supposed to invade the home islands. Please enlighten me on thier huge Gator navy they possesed in this time frame? Yes they could have sent bombers out but invade? Not likely.


They were going to use ships and by that stage few navies had less ships that the Japanese... Not that any Japanese ships would have been able to get close due to the hundred/thousands of Russian planes but yes, they were going to attempt to invade Hokkaidō and knowing Stalins record i doubt he would have cared much about a additional million casualties.


The Japanese were sent the text of the Potsam Declaration which in essence called for unconditional surrender at 0700 July 27th. It was rejected:


As for the government, it does not find any important value to it, and there is no other recource but to ignore it entirely and resolutely fight for the successful conclution of the war ----- Prime Minister Baron Kantaro Suzuki


Yes and the final surrender was CONDITIONAL and had that same text been offered on July 27 it may very well have been accepted. Why attempt to impose a unconditional surrender before you drop the atomic bombs but accept a conditional one after? Explain it to me...


You have mad mention several times in your posts that YOU have read history and implied that the rest of us have not (At least those opposed to your version of events).


Just the majority of those who are respond to my posts...



I am begining to wonder. Revisonist history is always 20/20 depending on ones point of view.


Revisionist history is no less 20/20 than any other type of history and the legitimate reinvestigation of history can not employ more source material than could have been used in the first place. Revisionist history is not 'better' because it is more arrogant but sometimes much better because is simply seeks to include more material in the analysis and is not so obviously biased by the major history establishment institutions.


If you look at the events of WWII in the context of the times, it really paints a different picture eh?


Well i can not as i was not allive back then but i do try and better informed people than yourself have on too many instances to mention educated and corrected me.

What sort of forums do you think i frequented before this one? How many guesses would you like?


Originally posted by FredT
Wow you are 100% right.........


I'm happy with 90% as i consider myself human and fallible.



oh wait, lets take a look at Iraq circa 2007? Please explain how these poor under equipped rebels are bascially holding off


Because they can as the US army is not being allowed to conclude the war by the introduction of sufficient men and machines to do the job?


the most high tech and power army the world has ever seen?


Does it hurt when you go into these chest thumping sessions?


Couple the fanatism of Al Queda terrorist with a largely mountainous country,


Defending your country is not in my opinion fanatical. Fanatical is forcing other people into fights they did not seek such as what happened to Japan in the late 30's.


and a population willing to fight down to the last man.


That i would like to see, or rather hear about, before i believe it.


At least in Iraq some are sypathetic to our aims.


Some WERE.


How many in WWII Japan would have been?


One does not require 'sympathy' not to fight as fear and the threat of certain death works wonders. The Japanese would not have fought to the last man and their emperor was never insane enough to even attempt to order them to do so. Japan lost far fewer citizens than Germany did and i don't see how Germans can be called more fanatical ( there were very very little cheering the streets when war broke out) than Japanese or how resisting tyranny is fanatical to start with.

Stellar

[edit on 2-7-2007 by StellarX]

[edit on 2-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Its late Stellar and multiple quote repsonces from the both of us is past my tired brain so I will have to get back to you on some of what you said manyana

One repsonce I will give you in regards to the list of cities.

You said if they were important why had they been left alone by leMays bombers?

It really simple a " targeting Committe" had selected these cities and LeMay was told not to attack them in force:

The Committee composed of

General Thomas F. Farrell
British Physicist William G. Penney
John Von Neumann - scientist
One unammed Colonel and one unamed Major



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
In regards to some posters discussions about Japanes bomb efforts they never really got very far along. Much like the Germans, they did try very hard, but the reality of and the effects of the war slowed thier progress.

The effort was led by Yoshio Nishina. By the summer of 1944 he had managed to produce 170 grams of uranium hexafloride. by compariosn the US was making the substance by the ton. (Taken from The making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes) they never were able to get much in the way of separating fissile uranium with their cyclotrons.

Even with the rumored transpher of German Uranium etc. it is less likely that Japan was anywhere near making an atomic weapon.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Apparently the official was forced to resign over his statement.




www.washingtonpost.com...

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's defense minister resigned on Tuesday over remarks that appeared to accept the 1945 atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, attempting to quell the latest furor plaguing the ruling camp ahead of an election this month.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   


The effort was led by Yoshio Nishina. By the summer of 1944 he had managed to produce 170 grams of uranium hexafloride. by compariosn the US was making the substance by the ton. (Taken from The making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes) they never were able to get much in the way of separating fissile uranium with their cyclotrons.


Yes that is what he produced at the Rikken institute at tokyo before it was bombed and before German shipments of Uranium Oxide reached Japan by U-boat in 1944.

FredT you neglect to note that by then the Japanese Imperial 8th Army laboratory had set up at Hungnam in what is now North Korea. The entire power production of the Choisin Reserviour was being used by 1945 to enrich uranium. You also fail to note that Hitler in September 1944 ordered the sharing of secret technologies with Japan including uranium centrifuges.

The order if you wish to investigate was Furher Haupt Quarter (FHQU 219/44)

The deliveries of uranium were not rumours. Imperial Japanese navy records of Japanese I-class submarine voyages to France detail amounts dispatched prior to D-day and I know of at least one Ultra decrypt referring to 560kg of Uranium oxide awaiting I-52 at the dock in Lorient in 1944.

As for the Kreigsmarine U-flotte manifest records these were loaded onto a Ju-290 aircraft and flown to Barcelona from Flensberg in april 1945 to prevent their capture. The War diaries or Kreigs Tag Buch (KTB) for several U-boats of U-flotte 33 (which operated to the far east) were never recovered at the end of the war. Also several of the U-boats involved in missions to the far East operated with their own special Enigma cyphers which were never cracked even by the end of the war.

I know of a project by groups of PC users (reported at axishistoryforum.org) trying to crack WW2 Enigma cyphers with raw signals and they are having a hell of a difficult job even with modern day computing power.

To dismiss it all as a mere rumor is unjust and flies in the face of several known an corroborated facts. U-219 and U195 reached Djakarta in November 1944 with between them 12 broken down V-2 rockets for the Japanese. What was the japanese use for the V-2 rocket ?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I failed to add that you can't bank on what Nishina said. In his memoirs he also records that Japanese efforts to build an atomic Bomb ended in 1942, but the reality as you point out FredT was that he was still at work on enriching uranium in the summer of 1944.

Major Robert Furman of the same ALSOS mission which went into Germany, subsequently went to Japan and Korea in September 1945. It is from US Army intelligence files that we are told that Japan succeeded in detonating a nuclear weapon. Furman and his men interviewed numerous Japanese scientists and engineers involved with the Nishina project.

By this stage USA had determined from the Potsdam conference that the Russians were the future threat. USA discreetly pardoned not only members of the Unit 731 biological warfare unit, but also discreetly pardoned Nishina's people.

There were aspects which USA wished to keep secret from Stalin. USA was trying to prevent Russia becoming an occupying force in Japan. You may wish to reflect that there was no peace accord signed with Russia.

We should recall that Japanese forces were still fighting the Russians in northern Korea as late as 10 October 1945. Japan did not stop fighting Soviet forces until long after the Peace accord was signed on USS Missouri!

Major Furman's report is found at Suitland MD in Record Group 331, file box 7409 and a shorter summary at NARA Modern Military group Washington DC, record group 243 (USSBS) section 2, 3f(14).



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   


StellarX asked:
So why did the thousands of German jets not save Germany? Care to explain where these planes would have been flying from, and i am sure they did not exist but lets pretend, or who would have been flying them? Why did the Japanese only have two operation jets in August 1945 and why were they still busy flight testing them?


Put simply the U-boat carrying examples and blueprints was sunk in 1944. However a less powerful Campini jet engine did reach Japan and it was this which was copied. Also the B-29 raids and later raids by Mustangs and naval fighters destroyed all of Japan's industrial infrastructure by April 1945.

Still the generals would not relinquish the fight. Yes the Soviets in Manchuria were a compelling reason, but the Japanese high command still would not surrender to the Americans until the A-bombs were used. In a sense had they not been used Japan would have gone on fighting.

In a strategic sense the A-bombs were used to prevent Russia gaining the Japanese home islands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims of the cold War as well as the last victims of WW2.

Truman only knew that Germany had been supplying uranium to Japan during 1944 and that somewhere Japan had it's own A-bomb project. B-29s were ordered to demolish any and every industrial target in Japan, by which time the Japanese A-bomb project was hidden in Korea.

Responding to Badge01, Bombing of Norsk Hydro and later the Telemark ferry was a setback but not fatal for the German nuclear effort. Nazis were also producing heavy water at their Beck Plant in Germany. Heavy water is important for reactors which breed plutonium for bombs. This rather underscores the myth that Heisenberg was only developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Ha ... sounds like Iran today.

Germany also had a second path to the A-bomb with Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) for a Uranium A-bomb.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Really now? Setting aside the fact that destroying entire cities was part and parcel with the acceptable standards of war during that time (its sheer folly to try to slap on present day morality and values with actions in the past...... But then again its part and parcel for the revisionist historian
) Five cities were actually chose. All had strategic value of some sort or another.

Kyoto: Industry, port, and population base


Hang on... Kyoto is not a port by any stretch of the imagination. It`s got a river or two that are quite pretty in the fall, and a shallow lake on the outskirts with some decent fishing, but it`s NOT a port, nor has it ever been heavy on industry. It`s at a reasonably high elevation a couple hundred km from the sea.

The only reason to hit it would be to destroy the cultural heart of Japan. Kind of like taking out vatican city or something.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
The only reason to hit it would be to destroy the cultural heart of Japan. Kind of like taking out vatican city or something.


The US Government nixed Kyoto as a target city exactly because of that reason.

You are right about it not being a port, Im not sure why I added that in.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Put simply the U-boat carrying examples and blueprints was sunk in 1944. However a less powerful Campini jet engine did reach Japan and it was this which was copied. Also the B-29 raids and later raids by Mustangs and naval fighters destroyed all of Japan's industrial infrastructure by April 1945.


I know about the technology transfer and know that Japanese industrial activity were as good as discontinued by mid 45...


Still the generals would not relinquish the fight. Yes the Soviets in Manchuria were a compelling reason, but the Japanese high command still would not surrender to the Americans until the A-bombs were used.


As soon as the fast pace of the Soviet advance became clear the generals had lost the last bit of credibility they had with the emperor and i really believe, and i think the time frame more than supports it, that the quick surrender came as result of the now conditional terms the US offered and the fact that the USSR were willing to do what the US leaders would not.


In a sense had they not been used Japan would have gone on fighting.


Resisting might be a better word as i feel 'fighting' implies they had the means to keep doing so for very many more months. It's one thing to lose you industrial potential but what happens when they start spraying your rice paddies?


In a strategic sense the A-bombs were used to prevent Russia gaining the Japanese home islands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims of the cold War as well as the last victims of WW2.


I can easily agree with the claim that it was a show of force as well as a weapons test on a populated city...


Truman only knew that Germany had been supplying uranium to Japan during 1944 and that somewhere Japan had it's own A-bomb project. B-29s were ordered to demolish any and every industrial target in Japan, by which time the Japanese A-bomb project was hidden in Korea.


I don't know much about the Japanese A-bomb project....


Responding to Badge01, Bombing of Norsk Hydro and later the Telemark ferry was a setback but not fatal for the German nuclear effort. Nazis were also producing heavy water at their Beck Plant in Germany. Heavy water is important for reactors which breed plutonium for bombs.


From my reading i think the Germans were very close to deploying nuclear weapons and at least some source material suggest quite strongly that they basically had some completed or as good as.


This rather underscores the myth that Heisenberg was only developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Ha ... sounds like Iran today.

Germany also had a second path to the A-bomb with Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) for a Uranium A-bomb.


Stuff i did not know.


Stellar



[edit on 3-7-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its late Stellar and multiple quote repsonces from the both of us is past my tired brain so I will have to get back to you on some of what you said manyana


Those early morning responses are rarely as constructive as they should be or i am able to make so excuse 'tone'.
You can respond whenever you find the time as i try not to assume much, beside the absolutely mundane fact that you might just lack the time, and certainly never think the absence of responses makes the opposing view wrong or serves to qualify mine...


It really simple a " targeting Committe" had selected these cities and LeMay was told not to attack them in force:
The Committee composed of
General Thomas F. Farrell
British Physicist William G. Penney
John Von Neumann - scientist
One unammed Colonel and one unamed Major



Which brings me back to the point, why would these 'guys' firebomb Tokyo killing so many yet leaving critical strategic targets unattended?


After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. This was the worst disaster for Tokyo since the 1923 earthquake. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000.[4] This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden.

Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the firestorm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26. The firebombing technique was highly successful and was a large morale boost to the U.S. air force.

The firebomb raids were not the only raids on Tokyo; there were more regular raids using conventional high explosives. With the capture of Okinawa, the Eighth Air Force was transferred there from Europe and began its own raids. Monthly tonnage dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 short tons in March to 42,700 tons in July ( 38,700 metric tons), and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 short tons (105,000 metric tons) per month.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't buy it and i'm not sure how such a idea can in fact be defended. So they lose 22 aircraft for destroying much of Tokyo showing that 'resistance' , whatever it was, was not in the form of aircraft or air defenses that could prevent the USAF from bombing at will.

Why were they still claiming to be bombing ports and 'depots' in August when they were firebombing Tokyo in February and were able to fly so low and with so little defensive armor and arms that they were able nearly triple the B-29's bomb loads? It's going to take quite a lot of convincing to show me that this was anything other than a inhuman, but that is readily obvious from many of their other actions, science experiment that they felt they had to get done before signing the peace agreements.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Whether you call it resisting or fighting, the "resisting" continued in Korea until October 1945. The military were quite prepared to fight on.

After the bombing of Hiroshima, Nishina himself was sent to Hiroshima the very next day to survey the damage and report back to the War cabinet whether this was from a nuclear blast.

Nishina's advice was that yes it was a nuclear blast, but he also advised the cabinet not to surrender as the Americans could not possibly have another nuclear bomb owing to the amount of time required to enrich uranium.

Truman was dumbfound when Japan still would not capitulate after Hiroshima so it was ordered that the second bomb, Fat Boy be used. This was the bombing of Nagasaki on 9 August 1945.

It was when Nishina was discredited by the second A-bomb that the Japanese cabinet decided that Japan must surrender.

The young cadet officer corps refused to believe the Emperor had made a decision to surrender and believed he must have been held captive by the War Cabinet and forced to surrender. The young officers staged a coup d'etat in the final days of the war, but returned to barracks when the Emperor assured them that it was his decision.

Also regards Manchuria and the million strong Kwantung army there. 300,000 of them were Indian soldiers captured in Burma who had agreed to fight for japan against the British for India's independence. Their loyalty to Japan or India was so in doubt that they were deployed against the soviets ad most gave up without a fight.

Most of Japan's defence in Manchuria was based upon small isolated forts. which were easily bypassed by large mobile tank armies. The Japanese had thoroughly inadequate tanks, better suited to WW1. Even if Japan had tanks in Manchuria it had no fuel supplies for them. Even then however the forces in Korea especially fought a dogged rearguard action so that most of the scientists of Unit 731 managed to reach ships for home at Port Arthur.

Incidentally biological warfare was used against soviet forces in Manchuria. The point which all this reinforces for me is that without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however unpalatable it is to us in 2007, the war may have lasted well into 1946.

There were certainly no other A-bombs available after nagasaki was bombed and so the deterrent value was very nearly discredited had this become obvious to the Soviets.

A further point was that Stalin was quite intent upon capturing norther Germany and Denmark in May 1945. Hitler had tried to negotiate with Zuhkov from Berlin in April 1945 offering Stalin all of northern Germany and Denmark if he was allowed to flee to Japan (via a flying boat in Norway).

It was only the mad dash of Montgomery's forces to Luneberg which prevented denmark becoming part of the Eastern bloc.

Truman was juggling issues such as Soviet belligerence to US and British forces after VE day, which threatened a whole new war in Europe. The A-bombs were seen as a way to send a warning to Moscow in 1945.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
It's going to take quite a lot of convincing to show me that this was anything other than a inhuman, but that is readily obvious from many of their other actions, science experiment that they felt they had to get done before signing the peace agreements.


The best answer for that is, "duh." Its a war and war is inhuman and who ever does it the worst, meaning killing the most of the opponent is the victor.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by RedGolem]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Use of the atomic bomb was not inevitable.

In fact, it wasn't until July, 1949, that the bomb was tested and found to be, one, workable, and, two, controllable.

Moreover, Japan was given an opportunity to surrender, although we know that surrender for the Japanese was out of the question. They had a chance to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped and before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped and refused.

While the use of the bomb was not inevitable, it was absolutely necessary to bring the war to an end. In the end, probably a million lives were saved on both sides.

All the evidence leads to that conclusion, unless, of course, you ignore all the evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join