The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Do you agree with Truman's decision?

Do you agree with Truman's decision to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

2Quik4UHoes

Why you had to go?
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
62,621
Reputation
18,050
Daps
231,733
Reppin
Norfeast groovin…
Pre-WW2 Japanese were different. But if the Emperor died by nuke, after seeing the devastation and then watching people writhe in pain for days and watching their skin melt within 24 hours. That would have made them end it quick. Definitely, IMO, wouldn't have taken longer than a week.

Yeah, I just wonder how different the process would’ve been. The Emperor’s immense prestige made surrender easier to bear for the Japanese and even then you still had a rogue units in places like the Philippines holding out damn near until the Vietnam War.

I think it’s an interesting look into speculative history to gauge how different the surrender process would’ve been. The Emperor was the living embodiment of Japan’s institutions and culture going back centuries. Maybe Japan takes on more of a Germany look with the remnants of the decision makers coming together to rehabilitate Japan. Perhaps Gen. MacArthur spends more time making Japan his little colonial pet with the Philippines gaining independence post WWII. It’s an interesting question. What’s certain is had the nuke been used just once but on a high profile target like Tokyo instead of military targets like Nagasaki shyt would’ve been very interesting.
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
37,353
Reputation
19,805
Daps
118,979
Yeah, I just wonder how different the process would’ve been. The Emperor’s immense prestige made surrender easier to bear for the Japanese and even then you still had a rogue units in places like the Philippines holding out damn near until the Vietnam War.

I think it’s an interesting look into speculative history to gauge how different the surrender process would’ve been. The Emperor was the living embodiment of Japan’s institutions and culture going back centuries. Maybe Japan takes on more of a Germany look with the remnants of the decision makers coming together to rehabilitate Japan. Perhaps Gen. MacArthur spends more time making Japan his little colonial pet with the Philippines gaining independence post WWII. It’s an interesting question. What’s certain is had the nuke been used just once but on a high profile target like Tokyo instead of military targets like Nagasaki shyt would’ve been very interesting.

It's hard to imagine the entirety of Japan going full kamikaze if the Emperor dies. Though I can't really put it past them. :mjlol:
 

2Quik4UHoes

Why you had to go?
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
62,621
Reputation
18,050
Daps
231,733
Reppin
Norfeast groovin…
It's hard to imagine the entirety of Japan going full kamikaze if the Emperor dies. Though I can't really put it past them. :mjlol:

The U.S. military sure ain’t put it past them. Them cacs had to save face…..:russ:

We might’ve gotten a Vietnam scale embarrassment well before Dien Bien Fu ever happened if Japan went on a National kamikaze campaign….:russ:

Strategic bombing would’ve been useless with American boots on the ground. The urban warfare might’ve been a multiplied version of Stalingrad. The only issue is that a Japanese resistance campaign might’ve faltered due to precarious supply lines. I mean shyt, by the time America was at their doorstep they was in major shyt.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
666
Reputation
120
Daps
1,118
Reppin
NULL
No. I generally agree with the theory that it was the Soviet entry against Japan in August 1945 that "caused" them to surrender.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
49,137
Reputation
18,993
Daps
195,587
Reppin
the ether
Most of the assumptions underlying the responses in this thread are dead wrong and the result of the narrative being set by massive post-war jingoism.

For example - something no one has mentioned yet is that Truman made the decision to use the nukes within weeks of becoming president. FDR had never green-lighted the decision, but Truman did almost immediately, appointing a committee to pick bombing targets with virtually no input from military leaders and then setting those targets aside, ordering they not be bombed until the nukes were ready so that the full effect of the nukes could be measured.

The bombs weren't dropped due to military necessity. The decision had already been made months earlier, without military input, and the bombs were dropped as soon as they were ready. It was primarily the testing of a new weapon and an attempt to position America as superior to the USSR in a post-war world.




:francis:


Okay, but I'm writing two comments and then logging off and getting away from this place again.


#1. The bombs did not end the war. Japan was already defeated and looking for a way out. The looming threat of Russian invasion ended the war (we barely managed to squeeze in the bomb right on Russia's planned start of operations against Japan) helped out by American willingness to make certain concessions to Japanese sovereignty. USA dropped the 2nd bomb before even waiting for a Japanese response to the first bombing (Japanese leaders were only just starting to discuss Hiroshima because they'd barely been able to survey the damage).

Soviets declare war on Japan; invade Manchuria

#2. "Nukes or Invasion" is a false dilemma. Invasion was never necessary. Since the Japanese naval and air forces were already decimated, the "worst case scenario" would have been a continued blockade. Why do you need to risk lives to invade a country that can't actually do shyt to you?

#3. The Japanese knew they were defeated, if the Americans had simply said, "We'll let the emperor remain and we won't keep Japan occupied indefinitely", the war would already have been over.

#4. EVEN if #1-#3 weren't true, you can't just kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because you think it will save some soldiers' lives. That's a war crime and incredible moral bullshyt. If massacring some civilians to save others was morally allowable the world would look like a very different place - you could justify torture, organ harvesting, terror attacks, etc.

cites coming....
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
49,137
Reputation
18,993
Daps
195,587
Reppin
the ether
I could cite at length from historians detailing why the bombing wasn't necessary. But those will be "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". So how about we look at the opinions of the military and government experts at the time? All quotes taken from Hiroshima: Quotes and Guide to Decision: Part I, but I've verified them elsewhere and they check out.



"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

- Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet



"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war....The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan."

- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet



"we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

- Brigadier General Carter Clarke, officer who prepped intercepted Japanese cables for Truman



"It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."

- Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of Chiefs of Staff



"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

- Chairman of Chiefs of Staff William Leahy



"General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster [the bomb]. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa."

- Weldon Rhoades, transport pilot for Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, writing in his diary the day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped



"I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower



"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- former President Dwight Eisenhower



"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

- Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur



"On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time."

General Carl Spaatz, Commander of U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific



"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air....
it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

- Commanding General of U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold



"I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it."

- Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations



"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped."

- General Claire Chennault, Army Air Forces Commander in China



"Both men . . . felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used."

- private notes of former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman, describing the opinions of General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, commander of the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force and deputy commanding general Frederick L. Anderson



"said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war."

- Major General Curtis E. LeMay, Commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command



"Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war."

- Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, in charge of psychological warfare on MacArthur's staff
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
49,137
Reputation
18,993
Daps
195,587
Reppin
the ether
And if y'all are the types who prefer the office types to military brass....



"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia....I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias



"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."

Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias



"[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia."

"Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war."

- Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, Chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section



"I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted...In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb."

- Under-Secretary of Navy Ralph Bard



"During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for."

- Under-Secretary of Navy Ralph Bard



"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision. If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew



"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy



" Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate...It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss



"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."

Vice-chairman of U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Paul Nitze



On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

former President Herbert Hoover



"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

former President Herbert Hoover



"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

former President Herbert Hoover



"As early as April 29, 1945 the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) informed the Joint Chiefs of Staff that increasing 'numbers of informed Japanese, both military and civilian, already realize the inevitability of absolute defeat...The entry of the U.S.S.R. into the war would, together with the foregoing factors, convince most Japanese at once of the inevitability of complete defeat.'"



"The diary of Walter Brown--an assistant to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes-- records that aboard ship returning from Potsdam on August 3, 1945 the President, Byrnes and Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the President, "agrred [sic] Japas [sic] looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."



Guide to Decision: Part I

Guide to Decision: Part II

Guide to Decision: Part III

Guide to Decision: Part IV
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
60,943
Reputation
5,745
Daps
159,932
Most of the assumptions underlying the responses in this thread are dead wrong and the result of the narrative being set by massive post-war jingoism.
thanks for the links, and this is 100% the main point. A lot of people just injest nonsensical, pro-western jargon.
 

IrateMastermind

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
5,182
Reputation
1,096
Daps
9,908
Simple answer: yes.

more complex answer. Can’t be done in present day and I couldn’t be the person to agree to doing something like that but if you don’t know what the rape of nanjing is you should look it up.

Shoe on the other foot San Francisco is getting nuked to Bolivian because at the time they were really on some if you’re not with us you’re against us shyt.
 
Last edited:

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,298
Reputation
5,839
Daps
93,885
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
They may not have been necessary to end the war but it may have prevented future use of worse nukes that would have caused more destruction and possibly the end of civilization. Impossible to say really without getting straight answers out of leaders of nuclear powers since that point in time
 

Wiles

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
15,658
Reputation
1,380
Daps
50,857
Japan wasn't going to stop i wish we didn't have to japan is the best Asian
 
Top