This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan
Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives
Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
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.
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike
Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):
In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so 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….
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
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.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. 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.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
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.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
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. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
***
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
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.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
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.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “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.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when 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.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?
Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets ... not cities
For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. 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… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
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…
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.
Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed
Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.
As historian Doug Long notes:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).
Politicians Agreed
Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):
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.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):
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.
Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?
If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:
On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”
However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.
Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) - said differently:
“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.
Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:
We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).
The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.
The Real Explanation?
History.com notes:
In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reported in 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”
***
[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
***
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
John Pilger points out:
The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.
We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:
Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
***
Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.
***
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
***
Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
»
- advertisements -
Nobody is going to stop us. Cuz we have the bomb. Would you prefer to be brutalized so some academic can piss and moan about it 60 years later?
Iran couldn't have said it better. At least now you understand their strategy.
And Muslims will embrace Infidels. And China and Japan will soon make kissy-kissy. And Arabs and Israelis will soon lay down together.
"Germans stopped goose-stepping, the Japanese stopped raping Chinese and Korean girls, the Russians stopped rolling over Hungarian kids with tanks" because someone stopped them !
For me personally, I wish the U.S. would let some of these belligerents have at each other and come in to do the mopping up later. But I know that is wishful thinking.
Well - I had higher hopes for ZH readers - but all the comments I see, people cannot stand the truth. Just because you are American, does not make you complicit in the crime - but it does mean you should take a long hard look at history and wonder what makes the US so great.
People simply don't want to believe that the leader of the US decided on an insane and criminal act - as a demonstration of power. Killing hudreds of thousands of people, who did not have a chance - women and children.
That is not war - that is terrorism - and that has been the method and path of the US since WWII.
Wrap it in the flag and they would eat babies and call it patriotism - this is the principle tool that is being used to control the US population, nationalism - incidently the same tool used by the Nazi's - realise that you have been suckered - people are the same throughout the world - its the controllers you should be concerned about.
"Well - I had higher hopes for ZH readers - but all the comments I see, people cannot stand the truth. Just because you are American, does not make you complicit in the crime"
So you're thinkin the Imperial Japanese Military's Unit 731 was a good or a bad thing? How about the Rape of Nanking...good or bad?
Straw man argument.
Let see . . . if some Japanese raped in Nanking . . . that means its o.k. for US polticians to decide to use the A bomb to kill women and children ? Sounds like that logic leads to a lot of innocent people being raped and killed.
Humanity is probably a lost cause, given such thinking.
Well spoken nmewn The Nanking Massacre, was under reported. Women and children were abused/raped and tortured for months!
Fuck Japan, and the " Marshall Plan" horse it rode in on! The BoJ is 200% gdp, resource empty, and aging. China should do a land grab!
The Bank of Japan keeps printing (yen) for over seas investment , and no one is willing to dicuss the complete lack of leadership and growth in Japan. Japan is a "house of cards", that has nothing more than their "KAMPO" word! Tyler is correct when he says Japans days are numbered! It's coming soon!
Maybe you didn't hear, but that war is over.
The new enemy is Eurasia. Or is it Eastasia ? I forget.
Amagnonx
Well, thank you for your pontification to us lesser beings.
You know, it is possible that GW has a plausible but erroneous conclusion by cherry-picking history.
Insane, criminal ? Hardly.
And as far as Nationalism goes, I, too, was appalled when the Media marched lock-step to the beating drum of war with Iraq. It seems war with Iran has not yet reached that fever pitch.
regards.
Actually it was war. Japan declared war on the US in 1941. It is popularly known as World War Two. You ought to look it up.
The US had it's boot on Japan's neck - their oil lifeline and dared them to attack. The hapless idiots running the West found out that you don't bitch-slap a feudal samurai an expect to walk away without a scratch. The US had declard economic war long before Pearl Harbor - just because they didn't realize the implications doesn't mean they were not complicit.
So economic war is bad, eh? So we should cut to the chase and attack Iran?
Vlad
The U.S. gave ample warning to Japan while Japan was committing war against its neighbors. It is not like the U.S. cut off Japan's supply of American oil simply because they could.
A more complete picture of Japanese belligerance is available if you would care to look.
By the way, I have no doubt that Japan today, like Israel, has the bomb. No point having Nuclear reactors if you don't take advantage of the spent fuel.
I have an advance degree in 20th century Japanese military history. Is that a close enough look for you? Japan was acting in it's national interest as an imperial power against resource targets close to shore - a Japanese Monroe Doctrine...a point they tried to make to the US. The US didn't just cut off supply of American oil. They embargoed foreign countries, some of whom were desperate to sell (Mexico and Holland), seized Japanese trade goods in US warehouses and seized ALL Japanese gold held in trust in US banks as collateral for international transactions. Warning someone as you taunt them is simply...more taunting.
So your thesis is America bad, Japan good.
Japan was a monotheistic, racist society collected around a God-Emperor.
If you have a Phd. I would love to read your thesis. Load it here on ZH so we may peruse your work. And will grade it for you too. No charge.
I have a Masters. And no thanks. If you're having a hard time understanding my "thesis" here, a dissertation on Russo-Japanese border conflicts through Nomonhan would leave your head spinning.
Where did I say Japan good? Their empire was creating unspeakable horror in their neck of the woods. Was America bad for damning them for their behavior and then lustily jumping into the same barbarity? Since I hold the US in higher regard as a moral figure than I do imperial Japan, then yes.
And by the way, genius, Japan was not monotheistic, and the rascist label hardly stings, as the interned Japanese-Americans and Jim Crow-ed black in America could attest to.
Any nation whose utimate authority was an Emperor/God is monotheistic in my books; all lessor idols contibuting solely to superstition. And I don't need a self-appointed "master" to teach me about Russian/Japanese animosity going back to at least the middle of the nineteenth century.
Your argument that the Japanese were trying to get the Russians (would could not stand the Japanese) to "mediate" is bullshit. And you know it. All Stalin wanted was disputed territory.
Why not move up from a Masters and get your doctorate. You seem to have the academic arrogance to fill the bill.
Your knowledge of the Japanese pre-war religious system seems constructed by a bizarre mixture of comic books, John Wayne movies and tales told on the knee of a half senile uncle. Monotheism and polytheism are very sharplydefined terms and don't bend well to your whimisical interpretations. I'm not "self-appointed" and I didn't say I was amaster. I said I have a Master's degree. I have no need to pursue anything further, as I have already secured my desired employment as a historian for the Defense Department and I'm quite humble.
Since you've obviously not taken the time to read the extensive scholarship done on the Purple cipher decrypts, I can see there's really no point in continuing to discuss Japanese attempts to draw the Soviets into mediation. I'm astonished by your attempts to persist in a discussion about which you have not even the most basic of facts. There wasn't even any disputed terriroty between them...God! (the monotheistic one) Forget it. I'm going to bed.
Vlad - - this is too large a topic to get into in any depth, but I would be interested to hear of your opinions as to the role of FDR in the Pearl Harbor attack ?
This is a sincere question since you studied the Pacific War. Thank you, - - -
The most comprehensive "new" scholarship that's been done on this topic was researched by Edward S. Miller, who is best known for detailing America's history or war plans against the Japanese Navy. His book, Bankrupting the Enemy is the seminal work on the subject in my opinion and he tries to keep the economic jargon to a minimum.
Others have looked at what FDR knew and didn't know and Churchill's goading and all that, and Miller doesn't brush that aside but he lays out uncontestable evidence that a hawkish faction of the Treasury dept decided to take FDR's hard line toward Japan and rachet it up, eventually leading to the embargo of oil, sanctions on oil producing nations selling to Japan, seizure of their silk stocks and gold in the US (used as loan and trade collateral).
After these fellows went on the war path, FDR was constantly reacting to JAPANS reaction to these guy's manueverings and it isn't clear that he knew that both he and Japan were being manipulated. It's certainly clear that the Treasury nerds in the basement pulling this off had no idea that Japan would lash out as violently and as effectively as they did. Essentially FDR was forced to react to a crisis that indirectly benefited him (which is why these guys were never punished), but the march to Pearl Harbor was a comedy of errors with rogue T Dept people in the role of the Pied Piper.
Allied intelligence knew Japan was going to strike, but the Americans thought they would hit the British and Dutch, the British thought they would hit the Dutch and the Philippines and no one thought they would hit Pearl Harbor. It had been war gamed, but only on a lark. As it turned out, PH was only a tactical and operational success for Japan and they failed to capitalize on any strategic momentum in the Eastearn Pacific.
Vlad - thank you for your very informative reply regarding Pearl. I was unaware of the Treasury angle that you mentioned and will have to read the Miller book that you cited.
History is a fascinating subject (Ive loved it since I was a boy) . . . but it doesnt seem that humanity ever learns from it. Perhaps some of the old science fiction novels are right when they theorize that civilizations grow till the technology of their weaponry advances to a certain point. Only a few survive their own stupidity & arrogance.
Regards & thanks again, - - -
Yeah, Miller's book is a surprisingly short read (Unlike his War Plan Orange investigation) and absolutely critical to people wanting to understand the Pacific War. I think it is one of the most under-read books of the conflict.
I was reflecting on this whole thread last night that, as a fan of Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek, we have a very long way to go as a people.
Take care sir.
Now we're getting somewhere...someone who works for the Dept of Defense going to bed at 5:00 PM EST. What country do they have this "asset" in?
I'll assume, not Asia ;-)
They would rankle at you calling me an asset. I am currently working in Bahrain.
lol...fair enough and say no more.
I see below you mention the Treasury Dept. machinations behind the scenes, a reference to Harry White the Soviet mole?
There's a definite Green Arrow question.
.
"an advance degree in 20th century Japanese military history"? Holy smokes! This thread must be a wet dream come true for you.
It truly is. I just didn't realize the academics had so much work to do before convincing the crowd about the nature of the shadows they see on the cave wall.
It is true the the Japanese gold was seized, but taking gold from Japan had been going on for centuries beginning with the Portugese. The reason the Japanese moved to incorporate parts of China, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and so on, was a natural response to the imperialistic ambitions for the region by Britain. Japan did not want all its neighbors, nor itself, to become colonies of these imperialists. That was the impetus for Japanese expansionism. The US aided the corrupt British in their game. No different than what's going on today. Someday people will wake up to the corruption that the British have perpetuated all over the world.
Have you spoken with my grandfather on this topic? He (not Mac Arthur, not Nimitz, not Eisenhower) was on the ground, getting his ass shot at. He was thrilled the war ended and he got to go home.
And it could have been ended BEFORE the A-bombs were dropped
on the SAME terms (retaining the emperor as figurehead)
that the war ended AFTER the A-bombs were dropped.
The world hasn't since seen the kind of war that was fought in WW2. It was world war and no mercy was shown. Both sides targeted civilians with bombers. Millions of "defectives" were killed by the Nazis. The Japanese murdered whole cities of Chinese with bayonets. The Russians killed armies of captured solders. Sailors died because rescue ships wouldn't risk submarine attack.
Terrorism is nothing compared to what happened in that war.
The various inhumanities that man subjects man to are all equally grotesque. If you are the victim, it doesn't matter if you die singly or in the millions.
I'm sure the civilians who died when we firebombed Dresden, a city with no military value, were just as dead as the civilians who died when we A-bombed Hiroshima. Personally, I'd rather be burned up in a millionth of a second as a result of a nuclear bomb exploding than be burned to death more slowly via conventional bombs starting firestorms.
I also wonder if the US using the A-bomb deterred future major wars? We can never be certain if another hot war might have begun had not so many people been appalled by the obvious effects of the A-bombs.
Lots of zombies out this morning....must be getting ready for some football!!!!
Japanese nuclear weapon program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program
F-Go Project
...Historian Rainer Karlsch has alleged that shortly before the end of the war US intelligence acquired information to the effect that Japanese scientists had planned to conduct a test of a nuclear weapon near Hungnam on 12 August 1945. However, this could not be verified as the Red Army occupied Konan a few days later, before US occupation authorities could investigate fully...
A Successful Japanese Atomic Bomb Test?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?8811-A-Successful-Japanes...
The Navy and the Army were both working on seperate programs and were competing with one another for fissile material. They were years away from a test as far as anyone can tell and the program was hopelessly mired in interservice rivalry.
Are you quoting Donald Duck? I think he was there and rode shotgun on all program advancements...
Dropped the bomb when all they had to do was let Patton get to Germany first and keep going to the edge of Russia.
Somewhat amazing that one hasn't been used since WWII, but when the generations that remember the horror pass on someone will probably decide to do it again, sadly.
"all they had to do was let Patton get to Germany first and keep going to the edge of Russia"
You've been watch a little too much George C. Scott. With help from the Americans and British, Stalin got his war machine fully rolling by the end of the war. Stalin would have thought nothing of having a few hundred thousand more Russions die to gain another piece of dirt in Europe. FDR and Truman would never have gotten the necessary support at home to go after Russia.
This article ignores the fact that at that time a single bomber could fly over a Japanese city unopposed. It was not worth sending fighters up for what was probably a photo mission. If the Japanese had been aware a single bomber could deliver such devastation it might very well have been shot down resulting in a loss or worse, a capture of the weapon.
The only safe way to use one at the time was in surprise.
Japanese fighter planes were not equipped to reach the altitudes the weather and recon B29s flew at and their proximity fuses weren't properly calibrated for altitude either. If they had known that the US had developed and tested an atmic weapon they would have gone straight to the Soviets for mediation because they could not intercept a B29 at ceiling.
"they would have gone straight to the Soviets for mediation "
Your comprehension of history is a tad incomplete. Stalin was stonewalling the Japanese and any "mediation" would have involved carving up Japan.
Do you think the Japanese knew this? They thought that the Soviets were negotiating with them in good faith - the records of these contacts are all there. That you haven't bothered to study them doesn't surprise me; it's an obscure subject, but please don't try to school me. My knowledge of 20th century Japanese military history is overwhelming comprehensive.
george, this article is stupendous scholarship and transformative to my opinions....it only makes sense that the trogladyte military industrial complex wanted to play with its new toys and foment a fake war and arms race with the ussr whom they had established in the first place to create a miasma of perpetual fear and hence control.
it is also true that the rosenbergs were murdered by trumped up charges by the usa and its wall street overlords.....they murder because they can.....
this article is long overdue.....
We are still using the purple heart medals made for the invasion of japan.
The first part of that invasion, operation Olympic, was expected by the Japanese. Our intelligence underestimated the forces they had waiting for it. Instead of the over-whelming force that MacArthur thought he had, the Japanese would have parity on the ground and 6,000 planes, plus 3,000 kamikazes. Up to this point, that number of suicide planes had sunk 83 warships and damaged another 350.
This invasion would have been a blood bath. The smarter strategy might have been to continue to bomb and starve the Japanese, but the Allies were preparing for the invasion up until the atomic bombs and surrender. The two bombs saved millions of lives on both sides.
The plans for Operation Downfall, with Olympic to land on Kyushu with a followup, Operation Coronet to hit Tokyo at a later date, we only battle plans. No branch wanted to carry them out and arguments ranged from and enhanced blockade to aerial destruction of remaining targets. The only thing that would have forced a launch of amphibious operations against the Japanese mainland would have been Soviet landings on Hokkaido or northern Honshu. The Soviets would have needed at least another 6 months to get the landing craft together and the Japanese were desperately casting about for mediation and clarity on the Potsdam Declaration, through the Soviets, the Swiss and the Swedes.
Show me where MacArthur said he had overwhelming force. He knew it would be a bloodbath and practically shrank from the task. Olympic was only planned to take the southern half of Kyushu and Coronet would have secured only the Kanto plain. There was literally NO contingency for any follow-up or breakout. Downfall was a strategic deadend.
Vlad, did you grow up under a tarp?
The only thing that would have made the armed services invade Japan was an order to do so.
They would have invaded according to Olympic, met resistance, and improvised. That is how it was done.
Go study Richard Frank and John Dower's life work on the subject, then go back and read the primary source battle plans - then get back to me.
I repeat, they would have invaded according to DOWNFALL, seized their two target objectives and hardened their positions. After the expected casualties, there was not the men or material to conduct a full occupation or launch further offensives and the Allies would have defended their position while seeking unconditional surrender per the Potsdam Declaration.
The DOWNFALL order was unlikely to have come though as evidenced most plainly by Truman's decision to use the bomb. He was willing to do anything to prevent an invasion and there were at least 3 other plans on the table prior to DOWNFALL implementation.
But wait! Better go catch Ice Road Truckers on the History Channel!