Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Quote, "...I wonder if the motives didn't also include scaring Stalin into stopping his armies' advances in both Europe and the Far East..." I have also read something to that effect, but do not remember the source. After reading about it, I found it to be a very plausable explanation in addition to ending the war.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Orallay...The final surrender terms accepted by the Americans in August were the virtually the same as Japan offered 6 months earlier.

The Americans didn't "accept" terms, we made them. However, the terms Japan accepted were virtually the same as the terms we gave them before the A-bombs.

"Japan" did not make any offer of any terms until August 10, after the first two A-bombs had been dropped. Their offer was unacceptable, and if they had stuck to it, we would have nuked them again.

All previous offers of Japanese surrender were made by individuals who had no authority to make them.

The government of Japan did make an attempt to get the Soviets to mediate surrender negotiations shortly before the A-bombs, but this desire for negotiations did not come with any terms. Now that historians have looked into the issue, we know that they had four unacceptable terms in mind with the negotiations: guarantee of sovereignty for the Emperor, no occupation of the home islands, Japan be in charge of trying their own war criminals, and Japan be in charge of standing down their military.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The haggling over unconditional surrender was deliberate knowing the Japanese could never accept it.

We managed to make them accept it.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The purpose was to cause delay and keep Japan in the war until the A bomb experiment was ready.

The purpose of our surrender terms was to guarantee we could reshape Japan into a more peaceful society.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

[imho, but please tell me where i'm wrong iyho]

Done.

0 Replies

More Japanese documents on the surrender. It may reveal and settle some of the arguments now in progress on this thread.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japsurr.html

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Timber your bits in quotes:-

"Steve, once again, no surrender negotiations were entered into, nor terms of surrender agreed to BY THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT prior to the droppin' of the Nagasaki bomb."

That's what I keep saying. America was holding out until the bomb was ready.

No, America was holding out until Japan accepted our terms unconditionally.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"The Japanese government specifically, officially, defiantly, and publically rejected Allied surrender demands up to that time."

Which was for unconditional surrender, something the Japs could not accept, and something the Americans knew they could not accept.

We knew that they could be forced to accept them. And they did, in the end.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The Japanese feelers were govt. to govt. through the Swiss, not individual freelance efforts. Your analogy does not hold.

The Japanese government made a surrender attempt through the Swiss on August 10, after the first two A-bombs had been dropped. The Japanese government did not make any surrender-related contacts with the Swiss before this date.

Members of the Japanese embassy in Switzerland made some surrender overtures before this, but the fact that they could produce no credentials giving them authority to make such an offer told the world that they were acting on their own, even before the Japanese government denounced their offer as a treasonous plot.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "...I wonder if the motives didn't also include scaring Stalin into stopping his armies' advances in both Europe and the Far East..." I have also read something to that effect, but do not remember the source. After reading about it, I found it to be a very plausable explanation in addition to ending the war.

The sources are Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird, both anti-American propagandists.

Plausible, maybe. But the facts show that Truman at the time was mostly concerned with getting the Soviets to join the war against Japan, even going so far as to give them a pass on their conquests.

0 Replies

OralB

your bits in quotes

"The Americans didn't "accept" terms, we made them. However, the terms Japan accepted were virtually the same as the terms we gave them before the A-bombs."

No the Americans changed from unconditional surrender to acceptance of hirohito as constitutional monarch.
The Japanese would never accept unconditional surrender, thats why it was offered.

""Japan" did not make any offer of any terms until August 10, after the first two A-bombs had been dropped."

But "Japan" did.

"Their offer was unacceptable, and if they had stuck to it, we would have nuked them again."

Then why did America accept? And why did you not "nuke" them again?

"All previous offers of Japanese surrender were made by individuals who had no authority to make them."

So Japanese feelers put out through the Swiss had no authority?

"they had four unacceptable terms in mind with the negotiations"

So why the **** did the US accept them?

The haggling over unconditional surrender was deliberate knowing the Japanese could never accept it.

"We managed to make them accept it."

No, you dropped the bombs then changed the terms.

[imho, but please tell me where i'm wrong iyho]

"Done"

Rubbish. Get a grip.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"The Americans didn't "accept" terms, we made them. However, the terms Japan accepted were virtually the same as the terms we gave them before the A-bombs."

No the Americans changed from unconditional surrender to acceptance of hirohito as constitutional monarch.

Americans never deviated from our demand that our terms be accepted unconditionally.

Had we really guaranteed that Hirohito could remain a constitutional monarch, it would not have satisfied the Japanese demand that he retain sovereignty as ruler of Japan.

However, we did not make any such guarantee for the Emperor. The only guarantee we made in regards to the Emperor was our guarantee that MacArthur would have the power to remove him at will.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The Japanese would never accept unconditional surrender, thats why it was offered.

We insisted on having our terms accepted unconditionally because we had no intention of any other outcome.

Japan was going to accept it no matter how much it cost them.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

""Japan" did not make any offer of any terms until August 10, after the first two A-bombs had been dropped."

But "Japan" did.

No they didn't.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"Their offer was unacceptable, and if they had stuck to it, we would have nuked them again."

Then why did America accept? And why did you not "nuke" them again?

America did not accept Japans offer.

We did not nuke them again because Japan dropped their term on August 14 and accepted our terms without condition.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"All previous offers of Japanese surrender were made by individuals who had no authority to make them."

So Japanese feelers put out through the Swiss had no authority?

They had no authority and they were not Japanese feelers.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"they had four unacceptable terms in mind with the negotiations"

So why the **** did the US accept them?

We did not accept any of those four terms.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The haggling over unconditional surrender was deliberate knowing the Japanese could never accept it.

We knew they'd be forced to accept our terms eventually, and we were right. They did.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

"We managed to make them accept it."

No, you dropped the bombs then changed the terms.

After Japan made their first attempt to surrender on August 10, we responded to their demand that the Emperor retain sovereignty as ruler of Japan by stating that MacArthur would have the power to remove the Emperor at will.

This did not change any of our stated terms.

0 Replies

Steve, you appear to have a grip on a different reality than do some others. Whether you accept it or not, your arguments have been refuted. I expect you will not accept that.

The Allies agreed to protect the person of The Empororer Hirohito from responsibility for any war crimes in which he himself was not directly and personally involved, and to permit a powerless, figurehead monarchy to exist SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE ALLIED SUPREME COMMANDER. Hardly an Allied "change of terms". And no matter how you try to spin it, the Japanese Government - the only entity with authority to speak for and act upon behalf of The Japanese Nation, prior to 10 Aug '45 refused even to discuss surrender terms, rather, it officially rejected and publically defied Allied surrender demands. Had the Japanese Government's acceptance of surrender not been tendered and accepted, Tokyo was to be the target of a third bomb, preparations for deployment of which were proceding as scheduled.

Thems the facts. The rst is spin and conjecture.

0 Replies

Steve - what Timber and Oralloy are saying here is borne out by official documents. See e.g. this memorandum from President Truman's library >

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1945-08-02&documentid=49&studycollectionid=abomb&pagenumber=1

> and note particularly the dates, esp. the August 7 comment by Ambassador Nomura near the end of page 1.

On the same page is noted btw that Britain and Canada had been kept informed, so the same information must be available on both these countries' documentation.

0 Replies

P.S. scanned documents can't be viewed directly from link - sorry - but you can view it by clicking this item:
__________________________________________

August

Chronology regarding Truman and the a-bomb from 8/2/45 - 8/10/45 with Smyth report on atomic bomb released, August 6, 1951. Scanned version (2 pages) | Full text version
__________________________________________

on the main documents page about nuclear weapons of the Truman Library:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The Japanese Ruling Military Clique was not in the least interested in the bargaining table. By the codes of Bushido and Samurai, they were fully prepared and fully expecting to die in glorious, noble battle. Surrender was simply not an option. Japanes plans for Homeland Defense were detailed, ready to be implemented, and would have dwarfed the ferocity and slaughter, to both sides, of the Island Campaigns ... themselves the bloodiest, most fiercely contested battles of the war. Citizen militias were to be armed with everything from explosive belts to sharpened sticks. The remnants of the military were situated in prepared positions of defense-in-depth, ready, willing, and able not only to sacrifice themselves in what they knew to be a futile defense, but to take with them as well every bit of infrastructure they could manage to destroy.

The Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese Mainland, Operation Olympic, was the largest, most complex, most manpower and materiel intensive military undertaking ever contemplated, involving thousands of ships, tens of thousands of aircraft, and millions of men. Allied casualties were anticipated to range from 250,000 to over 500,000 or more. Japanese casualties, civilian and military combined, were expected to easily top 1,000,000. The preparations for Olympic were essentially complete, and the invasion was to take place in early September, with operations expected to last well into 1946.

There were other geopolitical considerations, but they were subsidiary. What matters is the war ended with the devastation of two cities, not months later amidst the complete destruction of the nation and its people as a whole.

timber

In theory that's correct; in actual fact after Okinawa, I don't think the American leaders would have done it. Absent the two A bombs, somebody would have figured out that they could simply tell the Japanese to call us when they got hungry enough.

0 Replies

HofT, Thanks for the link. However, to short shrift the hunt for the correct page, this one seems to confirm the position that Japan was not ready to surrender. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=1&documentdate=1945-08-02&documentid=49&studycollectionid=abomb

0 Replies

My god!

I think I actually agree with Gunga for once!

The Japanese had effectively been defeated by the time the bombs were dropped, surrender or no surrender. The bombings were unnecessary as was a full blown invasion of the home islands.

0 Replies

Adrian, Gunga is correct; the Japanese were already defeated; they had no more equipment to fight the war and most of their citizens were starving. Our mother was consdering taking us to Japan after the war (a choice given to us by our government while interned in concentration camps), and my older brother, then just ten years old was able to convince her to stay in California. We heard of the many hardships experienced in Japan right after the war. There was no way our family with our mother with four young children would have survived.

0 Replies

Aside from having 75 of their major cities torched by the B29s, the Japanese had lost their entire navy and merchant fleet and some unknown percentage of the little boats which went out to catch fish, and this is a nation which lives by the sea. Their main armies were still pretty much intact but it wasn't helping them any.

0 Replies

Their army spread out too far and wide had logistical problems of supplies and food.

0 Replies

On Kyusho alone, Imperial forces totaling over 800,000, including seasoned, reliable veteran units and numerous very highly trained and experienced elite formations, stood ready to repel the anticipated invasion. Over 12,000 aircraft had been marshalled for the final homeland defense - largely to be used in kamikaze attacks against the invasion fleet. Some 40 full-sized submarines, 20 destroyers, 3 heavy cruisers, numerous lesser armed auxilliary vessels, and hundreds of manned torpedoes were at the ready. Hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions and fuel had been husbanded, a labrynthine network of fortified, largely concealed, defense-in-depth had been constructed, and the 28 Million-strong National Volunteer Defense Force certainly couldn't be discounted as a force-in-being.

While there was no possibility the Japanese might have regained the initiative and reversed the course of the war, there was absolutely no reason to expect anything less of them than fanatical, no-quarter-asked-or-given, suicidal defense precisely of the sort characteristic of the island campaigns that had driven them from their far-flung conquests back into the prepared ramparts of their homeland. One thing the Japanese had never demonstrated was any inclination to give up without giving their all to the fight. With history as guide, no contemporary decision maker expected any less of them in the final battle. To have assumed otherwise would have been nothing short of stupid.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
The Japanese Ruling Military Clique was not in the least interested in the bargaining table. By the codes of Bushido and Samurai, they were fully prepared and fully expecting to die in glorious, noble battle. Surrender was simply not an option. Japanes plans for Homeland Defense were detailed, ready to be implemented, and would have dwarfed the ferocity and slaughter, to both sides, of the Island Campaigns ... themselves the bloodiest, most fiercely contested battles of the war. Citizen militias were to be armed with everything from explosive belts to sharpened sticks. The remnants of the military were situated in prepared positions of defense-in-depth, ready, willing, and able not only to sacrifice themselves in what they knew to be a futile defense, but to take with them as well every bit of infrastructure they could manage to destroy.

The Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese Mainland, Operation Olympic, was the largest, most complex, most manpower and materiel intensive military undertaking ever contemplated, involving thousands of ships, tens of thousands of aircraft, and millions of men. Allied casualties were anticipated to range from 250,000 to over 500,000 or more. Japanese casualties, civilian and military combined, were expected to easily top 1,000,000. The preparations for Olympic were essentially complete, and the invasion was to take place in early September, with operations expected to last well into 1946.

There were other geopolitical considerations, but they were subsidiary. What matters is the war ended with the devastation of two cities, not months later amidst the complete destruction of the nation and its people as a whole.

timber

In theory that's correct; in actual fact after Okinawa, I don't think the American leaders would have done it. Absent the two A bombs, somebody would have figured out that they could simply tell the Japanese to call us when they got hungry enough.

Starvation was the next step after the third A-bomb. Our bombers were about to sever their already meager rail-lines, and our blockade was already doing massive damage to their sea transport. They probably would have maintained enough food to feed their soldiers, but 10 million of their civilians would have starved to death.

It's true that we wouldn't have done the invasion as planned, but we still would have invaded if starvation hadn't produced results by 1946. As Japan surrendered, the invasion plans were already beginning to change to reflect the expected Japanese resistance at our planned landing sites. People seemed to be leaning towards saving up all additional A-bombs and then using them to clear the beaches before the invasion.

If we had possessed no A-bombs, we likely would have switched invasion locations and landed in northern Honshu. We had really good intelligence where Japanese troop concentrations were, and there were a couple spots in the north (Sendai to the north of Tokyo, and Ominato in far northern Honshu) where we could have established a beachhead without much resistance.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

The Japanese had effectively been defeated by the time the bombs were dropped, surrender or no surrender.

Yes, but getting them to actually accept our surrender terms was still a problem.

Adrian wrote:

The bombings were unnecessary as was a full blown invasion of the home islands.

True, but at the time we didn't know that they were so close to accepting our terms.

At the time it seemed a real possibility that even after three A-bombs, the Soviets entering the war against them, and the starvation of 10 million of their people, we might still have to invade in order to force acceptance of our terms.

0 Replies

So we have considerable means, coupled with a fanantical will. So why did they surrender? The fire storms created by bombing Tokyo killed more than the atomic bombs. If their code of honour was to fight to the last, why didn't they? The answer is simple. The Japanese would fight as long as they were able until they achieved honourable peace terms. And for the emporer to accept unconditional surrender (and thus make him liable like the nazi leaders to charges of war crimes) was not peace with honour. What changed was the allies position from uncompromising unconditional surrender to accepting surrender with guarantees regarding the emperor's status. It is my contention that such a shift in the allied position (trivial for the Americans, vital for the Japanese) could have brought about an end to the war at any time during 1945, but that a state of war was preserved to enable the atomic bombing experiments to proceed.

0 Replies

Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know