If you were Truman...

[unmerged(14689)]

For the Einsteins here advocating dropping A-bombs on the USSR (twelve even!):

1. The USA didn't have 12 A-bombs AFAIK.

2. The USSR wasn't seen as a big baddie back then. The heroic fight of the Red Army had filled the American papers for years and Stalin didn't mean "big mass murderer and enslaver of people" back then. Dropping bombs on the USSR wouldn't have been possible in this context IMO.

 

[unmerged(11897)]

in a heartbeat.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Steele,
Show me. Show me how the Russian Army was going to get from Korea to Japan please.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

yes, i would drop it with no reservations about it. even looking back today the other possibilities of not dropping it are much to worse.

and yes the allies had to make sure it was japan agreeing to their demands wholeheartidly. not the other way around. the US was taking no chance of japan ever harming her again. they wanted peace on their terms(even if their terms were what japan would agree on) and to sign it in tokyo. it HAD to be japan agreeing to the US's terms not the us agreeing with japan, even if they are the same basic terms. its about control and outward apperence of japan giving in to the US not the US agreeing to a favorable peace offered by japan.


as far as russia invading japan, wouldnt happen. russia didnt have the ability to project airpower to do so or the expereince to form and supply a beach head with japan launching suicide raides on it. not even bothering to check on sea transport

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Ok...

Suvorov, the US had built three bombs by August 1945, one more by December, two more by June (?) 1946, and by the end of 1946, they were rolling off the 'assembly line.'

AlexanderG: The invasion would have been launched from Sahkhalin, which was taken by amphibious landing.

http://www.danford.net/downfall.htm, about 1/3 of the way down.
http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/book/ussr.htm, paragraphs 5, 6, 7.

There is unfortunatly nothing more than this that I can find online, and the two things I have found are somewhat non-authoritative.

In Military History Quarterly, Spring (I think, I don't have it handy) 1995, there are a series of articles concerning World War Two in the Pacific. One of these goes into detail about the Russian invasion of Manchuria, and the subsequent invasions to follow, first into Sahkhalin, and than into Hokkaido.

I have several other books that contain this information, but I am at work now, and I cannot access them. Tonight, or tomorrow, I will, if you still are interested, post some information from them.

EDIT: Corrected the date of the MHQ Journal.

Steele

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by Suvorov
For the Einsteins here advocating dropping A-bombs on the USSR (twelve even!):

1. The USA didn't have 12 A-bombs AFAIK.

2. The USSR wasn't seen as a big baddie back then. The heroic fight of the Red Army had filled the American papers for years and Stalin didn't mean "big mass murderer and enslaver of people" back then. Dropping bombs on the USSR wouldn't have been possible in this context IMO.

jeez, einstein..didn't think I was tha Smart

1) They had 12 made/in production by the time the 1st A-bomb was dropped. They had the system down pat and could get those done in just weeks if not less.

2) Yes, they threatened to drop those bombs if they didn't leave Iran in 3 days? 2? a week? something. Ummm im pretty sure we dislike the USSR after the revoulution...and only allied with them for the greater good. In actuality there was already tension by 1930 (not a real threat for war though mind you).

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Skrrt:

There were not 12 bombs in production by Nagasaki. Three had been completed by August, a fourth by December of that year, there were two more by June of 1946, and by the end of the year, the bombs began to be produced relatively quickly.

The earliest that 12 bombs could have been dropped on anything would have been March of April of 1947, assuming that Nagasaki and Hiroshima never happened.

There were always tensions between the US and the USSR, but they were miniscule compared to those that arose at the beginning of the Cold War.

Steele

 

[unmerged(14537)]

Yes, the basic bottom line was/is it's us or them. It saved the lives of countless Allied soldiers. They started it and we finished it.

 

[unmerged(20138)]

Originally posted by Steele
Skrrt:

There were not 12 bombs in production by Nagasaki. Three had been completed by August, a fourth by December of that year, there were two more by June of 1946, and by the end of the year, the bombs began to be produced relatively quickly.

The earliest that 12 bombs could have been dropped on anything would have been March of April of 1947, assuming that Nagasaki and Hiroshima never happened.

There were always tensions between the US and the USSR, but they were miniscule compared to those that arose at the beginning of the Cold War.

Steele

1) In prodution as in planning/gathering. I know they wouldn't have been ready untill '47, but they were already begging to gather the plutonium (is that what they used then??) and such for them.

2) Yes, I know they wern't even close to escalating into war as I said.... the US was more pissed about there non-evacuating of the middle east, thats why they thretened to drop the bomb.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by skkrrt
1) In prodution as in planning/gathering. I know they wouldn't have been ready untill '47, but they were already begging to gather the plutonium (is that what they used then??) and such for them.

2) Yes, I know they wern't even close to escalating into war as I said.... the US was more pissed about there non-evacuating of the middle east, thats why they thretened to drop the bomb.

So, you are Truman, it's August 1945. You have, how many, two, three nukes?

Now you have to decide who to use them against:

Option 1: The Japanese. Those guys who attacked Pearl Harbor and killed thousands and thousands of American/British/Australian etc. soldiers.

Option 2: The USSR. Those guys that fought Hitler with you and promised to join the fight against your enemy, the Japanese. However, they didn't leave Persia as soon as you would have liked. Yeah, that's a very good reason for the American public to be dropping bombs on an ally...

 

[Bossemanden]

IMO in the isolated picture of things dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was at best unproductive (it changed nothing as Japan got to keep its emperor) and at worst a war-crime. So looking only at Japan: No I wouldnt have authorized the bombings.

In the larger picture the Soviets posed a clear strategic threat by 1945. From this perspective its an elegant way of showing the rest of the world (the Soviets) that further landgrabbing would come only at a catastrophic price.
Looking at the strategic situation as a whole: Yes I think it probably was the best solution and would thus have ordered the nuking of Japan.

Edit: And its also a good way of doing indirectly what you for political considerations cant do directly (Nuking the Soviets was like Suvorov said out of the question in 1945)

 

[unmerged(17221)]

Yes I would have dropped them. The other options would have costed more American and Japanese lives. The blockade and planned destruction of the Japanese rail network would have starved millions during the winter of 45-46. Even with US relief efforts following the Japanese surrender in Sept, there were still many cases of starvation during the winter. An invasion would simply have added to the death toll. Furthermore, ~ 100,000 Chinese civilians were dying ever month.

The Japanese were not trying to surrender before Hiroshima as some have claimed. There were some diplomatic moves, but each one was informal and had zero official support. Transcripts of messages between the Japanese Foreign Minister, Togo, and the ambassador to Russia, Soto, reveal that the Japanese would NOT accept unconditional surrender even with guarentees for the imperial throne. The surrender plans that the Japanese government put together allowed them to disarm the military, let them try war criminals, and avoided an occupation. It would have allowed them to do what the German General Staff do after WWI; it would have let them remain in control and rearm for a future conflict.

 

[phelbas]

Originally posted by Bossemanden
IMO in the isolated picture of things dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was at best unproductive (it changed nothing as Japan got to keep its emperor) and at worst a war-crime. So looking only at Japan: No I wouldnt have authorized the bombings.

Well remember at this time, putting a thousand planes over a city and fire bombing it into oblivion was acceptable military tactics. Why would truman see using one bomb to do the same thing as moraly wrong? America could have used it's regular bomber force to flaten these cities and there would be much less talk about it now. In the wake of the 2 nuclear attacks another devastating conventional raid hit Tokyo killing large numbers. Don't put a modern spin on this question. Trumans decision has to be taken in the context he was in.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Originally posted by skkrrt
1) In prodution as in planning/gathering. I know they wouldn't have been ready untill '47, but they were already begging to gather the plutonium (is that what they used then??) and such for them.

In a sense, yes, the plutonium and enriched uranium for the next atomic bombs was already being produced, but not for twelve, and there was no fixed plan to produce twelve. The only bombs that were planned to be produced were the ones that were actually being made.

In any case, this is irrelevant, and slightly off-topic.

Steele

 

[w_mullender]

I think Truman made the right call, though I might have considered dropping it on something other then a city (I am not sure whether that would be handy considering the amount of A-bombs). Japan was no way near to surrender and definately not unconditionally and from the perspective of evil government nothing less than an unconditional surrender should suffice. It also provided a small warning to Stalin if he considered not keeping his side of the bargain (Greece, Italy for example). Add to this the cynical observation that by that time decision makers were "used" to city bombings so the moral judgement was in the background. So I dont see what other decision he could have taken.

 

[unmerged(18239)]

For the time and the thoughts on city bombings I agree with Mulender Thruman made the right dicision altough it might seem brutal nowadays.

But besides this I do not see 100,000 civilians more likely die than 100,000 soldiers.

 

[unmerged(16470)]

I say drop the first bomb on Mt Fuji first (ie in plain sight of Tokyo) to show that the bomb is real and ready and destructive (like the top cone of the revered Mt Fuji is gone). If the Japanese still refuse to surrender after that, by all means drop the second and whatever's in production onto Jap for all we care....

 

[phelbas]

Originally posted by Tequila_powered
I say drop the first bomb on Mt Fuji first (ie in plain sight of Tokyo) to show that the bomb is real and ready and destructive (like the top cone of the revered Mt Fuji is gone). If the Japanese still refuse to surrender after that, by all means drop the second and whatever's in production onto Jap for all we care....

Leveling a city makes much more of an impact than bombing a mountain. Remember inflicting civillian casualties didn't woory them any more. We had raised every city and town in germany to the ground, inflicting massive casualites. This would not have been seen as differnet by the people making the decision in 1945

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Were actual negotiations (instead of a simple demand of unconditional surrender) even considered before the A-bombs were dropped?
That would have meant a pleasant alternative to the killing of random civilians, either by gunfire or a nuclear chain reaction.

 

[unmerged(3902)]

Originally posted by Tambourmajor
Were actual negotiations (instead of a simple demand of unconditional surrender) even considered before the A-bombs were dropped?
That would have meant a pleasant alternative to the killing of random civilians, either by gunfire or a nuclear chain reaction.

Negotiation's require that each side be willing to concede some aspect of it's position in order to reach an acceptable compromise. Which aspects of the Allies initial position, unconditional surrender, would you propose they give up?

Should they offer to let Japan keep China? How about Manchuria or Korea? How about they return to their anti-bellum borders but keep their government?

Would you propose a similar model in regards to Germany? Were the allies morally wrong for fighting for to the finish to completely eradicate the Nazi state, or should they have paused outside the borders of the Reich and sought to negotiate a surrender?

Ultimately, the Allies demanded Unconditional Surrender because that *was* their bottom line negotiating position, and, in my opinion at least, rightly so.