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

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

"...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."

0 Replies

Question for Oralloy:

If you're at liberty to say, would you explain your own background and your involvement, if any, in the subject under discussion here?

Thank you!

0 Replies

You're stretcung, Steve, and grasping at the straws of hinddight-based counter-opinion is of no use. As your reference from Long states,

Quote:

... July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." ...

Regardless what anyone thought or felt at the time or afterward, the Japanese were presented with a demand for unconditional surrender ... as had been the Germans months earlier. The Japanese Government officially refused even to contemplate ("mokusatsu") unconditional surrender, but sought rather to end the war on terms acceptable to Japan. As a direct consequence, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. The war ended with Japan's unconditional surrender.

0 Replies

i've been accused of many things but never stretcung before.

The intercepted Japanese material was in July, before the Postsdam Declaration.

To me its as plain as a pike staff that the only thing preventing the Japanese surrender faction from dominating was lack of any assurances about the post war status of the Emperor. And this is not with hindsight, it was known at the time.

What possible motive could there be for deliberately excluding Stimson's addendum to the Postsdam declaration, knowing that the Japanese would reject it in that form, and that hostilities would therefore continue?

0 Replies

Sorry about the typo, and at the moment, my internet connection is screwey (storm-related), so editing isn't a good option for me right now.

Anyhow, the military faction of the government had far more than just the retention of the Emperor on their plate. Those were the folks who brought us banzai charges, kamikaze attacks, and assorted other fanatical suicide tactics, remember. They knew the cause was hopeless, but they were determined - as witness the coup and the post-surrender-announcement mutinies - to go down fighting.

Again, unconditional surrender of the Japanese Military - specifically the military - coupled with divestiture of conquests, was the demand. Potsdam was nothing new or special; it merely reitterated the protocols set forth in the 1943 Cairo Conference. The demand always had been for unconditional surrender, and undconditional surrender was accomplished.

Read THIS

0 Replies

The author suggests that something short of unconditional surrender was achieved.

'Hardcore' versions of ucs by the US embassy in Japan with prosecution of the Emperor were quickly "terminated".

It seems after the 2 atom bombs were used Truman and the rest of the administration seemed so war weary that they all gave up and settled for something less than unconditional surrender.

And stating flatly that the US had used the only 2 bombs in its arsenal is untrue as we all know.

0 Replies

Not sure I follow what you mean about "the only 2 bombs". Anyhow, my point is that given the circumstances and understandings extant at the time, the bombings were, by those directly responsible for the decision, determined reasonable and prudent, and I hold that their use remains, given what was then and now is known about the Japanese Military, the soundest choice. And I really can't agree that anty concessions or special conditions modified the Potsdam demands. The Military surrendered, Japan was disarmed, demilitarized, stripped of conquests, and occupied, per the protocols of The Cairo Conference.

0 Replies

from your link

"On 10 August, after America dropped the only other atomic bomb in its arsenal...."

0 Replies

Thats a perfectly correct statement, Steve, but yours is an incorrect inferrence. Two constructed devices remained following the Alamagordo test. Their components, including their reaction cores, had been shipped to Tinian, assembled, and deployed. A 3rd was ready for final assembly, its core's shipment to Tinian halted with news of the Japanese acceptance of Potsdam. Other than for its core, the 3rd bomb was complete, and in place on Tinian. It would have been delivered to Japan within hours of the arrival of the core. Additional devices were under construction, at varying stages of completion, and plans to deploy same had been formulated and approved. I believe Oralloy made that clear a while back.

0 Replies

no, since we warned them first it wasn't. if we did it without warning htem then it would be, but we warned them.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>Oralloy, I dont think these INTERCEPTED messages between Togo and Sato were the equivalent of a "group of republican congressmen trying to surrender to Japan without FDR's knowledge." According to Douglas Long

My analogy was probably better suited for the attempts by embassies to surrender, which were done without the foreknowledge of the Japanese government.

It is true that the attempt by the Emperor and the peace faction to get the Soviets to mediate negotiations was done with the knowledge of the military faction of the government. However, they did not support the move at the time.

They only supported it on August 2nd.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

>July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

>Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

> * July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
> * July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
> * July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
> * July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
> * July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
> * July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
> * July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

There were other intercepted messages, where Sato pressed Togo for confirmation that the military faction supported this move, as he was skeptical that they would support it, and without their support, the venture was pointless.

Togo continued to dodge the question until August 2nd, when he finally came out and said that the military faction backed the negotiation route.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>All above was known to Truman. Stimson wanted to embolden the Japanese doves by offering something on the Emperor, but it was excluded from Potsdam Declaration, which I find strange.

>quoting from Long

>On July 2, 1945, Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894).

>However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand, known as the Potsdam Proclamation, that was broadcast on July 26th, in spite of Stimson's eleventh hour protestations that it be left in (Diary of Henry L. Stimson, 7/24/45, Yale Univ. Library, New Haven, Conn). Pacific war historian Akira Iriye explains, "One reason for this change [the removal of the Emperor retention line] was the growing influence within the State Department of men like [Sec. of State] Byrnes, Acheson, and MacLeish - with no expertise on Japanese affairs but keenly sensitive to public opinion - and the president's tendency to listen to them rather than to Grew and other experts." (Iriye, pg. 255-256). In regard to his disagreement with Under Sec. of State Grew over allowing Japan to retain the Emperor, Dean Acheson later admitted, "I very shortly came to see that I was quite wrong." (Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation, pg. 112-113).

It should be noted that "under the present dynasty" left open the possibility of deposing Hirohito and installing his son as Emperor.

There were a couple reasons it wasn't included.

One reason was the fear that there would be a backlash from American voters, who were not feeling charitable towards Japan after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.

Another reason is that we wanted to have the possibility of deposing Hirohito (and his son) hanging over the Japanese as a threat, to ensure that they would fully cooperate with the occupation.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>now I accept your detailed knowledge of this time, but at risk of being called a revisionist, the more I delve into this topic, the more I come to the conclusion that some revision of the "official" line, (i.e that the bombings were necessary to end the war and avoid invasion) is indeed called for.

Yes. Most mainstream historians agree that the bombings weren't necessary.

But we did not realize this at the time the bombs were dropped.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>Regarding the plutonium core incident...they deliberately approached criticality BY HAND? Were they mad?

>It sounds as if the bomb core was left lying around unwanted and unloved. Didnt the cupboard door have a lock on it or even a little warning sign

>"Danger...atomic bomb plutonium core assembly do not hit with hammer"

In their case, they were authorized to be doing the experiment.

The events are listed here:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/critical.htm

FATALITY FROM CRITICAL MASS EXPERIMENTS
Los Alamos, N. Mex., Aug. 21, 1945
During the process of making critical mass studies and measurements, an employee [Harry Daghlian] working in the laboratory at night alone (except for a guard seated 12 feet away) was stacking blocks of tamper material around a mass of fissionable material.

As the assembly neared a, critical configuration, the employee was lifting one last piece of tamper material which was quite heavy. As this piece neared the setup, the instrument indicated that fission multiplication would be produced, and as the employee moved his hand to set the block at a distance from the pile, he dropped the block, which landed directly on top of the setup.

A "blue glow" was observed and the employee proceeded to disassemble the critical material and its tamper. In doing so, he added heavily to the radiation dosage to his hands and arms.

The employee received sufficient radiation dosage to result in injuries from which he died 28 days later.

The guard suffered no permanent injury. (See TID-5360, p. 2.)

INADVERTENT SUPERCRITICALITY RESULTS IN DEATH
Los Alamos, N. Mex., May 21, 1946
A senior scientist [Louis Slotin] was demonstrating the technique of critical assembly and associated studies and measurements to another scientist. The particular technique employed in the demonstration was to bring a hollow hemisphere of beryllium around a mass of fissionable material which was resting in a similar lower hollow hemisphere.

The system was checked with two one-inch spacers between the upper hemisphere and the lower shell which contained the fissionable material; the system was subcritical at this time.

Then the spacers were removed so that one edge of the upper hemisphere rested on the lower shell while the other edge of the upper hemisphere was supported by a screwdriver. This latter edge was permitted to approach the lower shell slowly. While one hand held the screwdriver, the other hand was holding the upper shell with the thumb placed in an opening at the polar point.

At that time, the screwdriver apparently slipped and the upper shell fell into position around the fissionable material. Of the eight people in the room, two were directly engaged in the work leading to this incident.

The "blue glow" was observed, a heat wave felt, and immediately the top shell was slipped off and everyone left the room. The scientist who was demonstrating the experiment received sufficient dosage to result in injuries from which he died nine days later. The scientist assisting received sufficient radiation dosage to cause serious injuries and some permanent partial disability.

The other six employees in the room suffered no permanent injury. (See TID-5360, p. 4.)

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Question for Oralloy:

If you're at liberty to say, would you explain your own background and your involvement, if any, in the subject under discussion here?

Thank you!

Just an interested amateur.

I like nuclear-related things, and weapon-related things, so nuclear weapons have always been especially interesting to me, and I've managed to pick up a lot on them.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

INADVERTENT SUPERCRITICALITY RESULTS IN DEATH
Los Alamos, N. Mex., May 21, 1946
A senior scientist [Louis Slotin] was demonstrating the technique of critical assembly and associated studies and measurements to another scientist. The particular technique employed in the demonstration was to bring a hollow hemisphere of beryllium around a mass of fissionable material which was resting in a similar lower hollow hemisphere.

The system was checked with two one-inch spacers between the upper hemisphere and the lower shell which contained the fissionable material; the system was subcritical at this time.

Then the spacers were removed so that one edge of the upper hemisphere rested on the lower shell while the other edge of the upper hemisphere was supported by a screwdriver. This latter edge was permitted to approach the lower shell slowly. While one hand held the screwdriver, the other hand was holding the upper shell with the thumb placed in an opening at the polar point.

At that time, the screwdriver apparently slipped and the upper shell fell into position around the fissionable material. Of the eight people in the room, two were directly engaged in the work leading to this incident.

The "blue glow" was observed, a heat wave felt, and immediately the top shell was slipped off and everyone left the room. The scientist who was demonstrating the experiment received sufficient dosage to result in injuries from which he died nine days later. The scientist assisting received sufficient radiation dosage to cause serious injuries and some permanent partial disability.

The other six employees in the room suffered no permanent injury. (See TID-5360, p. 4.)

Here is a picture of a recreation of the accident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg

0 Replies

thanks for info and picture on tickling dragon incident oralloy.

I'm sure I read in The making of the Atomic bomb by Rhodes that it was Feynman himself who first did this experiment, by dropping a slug of U235 through another subcrtical mass thus exceeding criticality for a brief moment as the slug passed through.

0 Replies

surprised there hasn't been more posts on this thread recently.

Lets see if I can start the ball rolling again with this quote from

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080505E.shtml

"The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace.

These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished. "

0 Replies

Steve, Once again; Japan was looking for peace, but it was conditional. The US did not have to accept conditional peace.

0 Replies

It turned into "unconditional" after the second bomb.

0 Replies

I just think it very strange that the actual terms forced upon Japan AFTER the a bombs as part of "unconditional surrender", would have secured a surrender and a cessation of hostilities BEFORE the use of the atomic bombs, had they been offered.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

thanks for info and picture on tickling dragon incident oralloy.

You're welcome.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'm sure I read in The making of the Atomic bomb by Rhodes that it was Feynman himself who first did this experiment, by dropping a slug of U235 through another subcrtical mass thus exceeding criticality for a brief moment as the slug passed through.

That was the test they did of Little Boy to confirm that they had the calculations right before they dropped it on Hiroshima.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know