Lying about atomic bombing and Japanese surrender
nobody
I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
surrender. Now, normally I would not believe for a moment what on
the face of it seems to be a totally preposterous claim, but past
talks with people from Singapore indicate that they are an
essentially brainwashed people, they do not think at all
differently and have the same opinions on most subjects (even
down to saying the exact same things), and do not oppose even
preposterous policies of their government such as outlawing
chewing gum. So it's not like I can discount this story and tell
myself that a government, especially that government, would not
lie to its people.
How far would they go? Outright lying to their people? About
something so major? Is there any truth to what I heard?
I apologize for forging this post, but I think people can realize
that it is necessary - If what I heard is not true, I will no
doubt anger people because I dared believe something bad about
their government, and if what I heard is true, I will no doubt
anger people because I dared question their government and
education. I have no desire to be subjected to harassment because
of what I say on Usenet, nor do I wish to be mailbombed (again) or
have myself or others on the same system subjected to other
denial-of-service attacks.
Raymond Sirois
In Article<tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>,
Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
-==*>Ray<*==-
Ken
hey! i was taught the bombing of nagasaki (however tragic it was)
brought about the END of the war. and from what i see around
singapore, that has not changed. where did you get your information
from? japan?
Andy Capp
In article <tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>,
nobody wrote:
> I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
> of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
> surrender.
Heard from who? What utter hogwash! Did you make this up?
Why don't you get a history book (Singapore syllabus) before
you post rubbish like this.
Why don't you post "Lying about Japanese 'liberation' of Asia" in
soc.culture.japan? I think that would be more accurate.
> preposterous policies of their government such as outlawing
> chewing gum.
Chewing gum is outlawed?
>If what I heard is not true, I will no
> doubt anger people because I dared believe something bad about
> their government,
You bet it's not true. Anger not because you believe something bad
about the government. Cos you are brainwashed by anti-Singaporean
sentiment. There are lots negatives about Singapore on the whole. What
I find offensive is not the criticism about the bad things, but the blatent
lies.
Pete Bowen
Raymond Sirois <rsi...@elmira.twcable.com> wrote:
>In Article<tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>,
(snip)
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
>bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
>news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
>second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
>the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
>but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
>U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
This subject has been covered in great detail. The Japanese govt in NO
WAY made ANY real moves to surrender until AFTER the bomb was dropped
at Nagasaki. To make a long story short, the Japanese rejected the
terms of the Potsdam Declaration, and though they may have been
seeking a negotiated settlement of some kind, it would have required
that the Japanese be allowed to keep captured territory (ie. China).
Hardly a capitulation and hardly in accordance with the Potsdam terms.
Even AFTER the Nagasaki bombing, the Imperial Japanese war council
voted 3-3 on the issue of continuing the war: a tie meant that the war
continued. In order to break the tie, the Emperor was asked to cast
the deciding vote and did so. The Japanese govt (due to its structure
and competing interests) simply did not have the ability to surrender
prior to the Emperor's decision AFTER Nagasaki. Even after the
Emperor's decision, there was a coup attempt (to continue the war)
which was put down.
Martin Tolton
On Tue, 28 May 1996, it was written:
This is a response to twits who will jump at the chance to flame any
person who posts a message that they do not agree with. I do not see in
the above a newsgroups alt.political-correct.
> Is there any truth to what I heard?
Most sentences in the english language that begin with "Is..." are
questions that can be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No". The personal
attacks on the person who askes the question is immature, and narrow
minded.
This question askes people who have knowlege in a particular field to
confirm or deny something that he or she heard, ie. not something they
made up.
Those who cannot read without taking personal offence to what is written
should stay far away from informative or objective newsgroups. I would
suggest alt.dinasaur.barney.fan-club.
Regards
-Martin
m...@portal.ca
______________________________________________________________________________
Katz's Law:
Men and women will act rationally when
all other possibilities have been exhausted.
______________________________________________________________________________
e4,
Steve Sundberg
Raymond Sirois (rsi...@elmira.twcable.com) wrote:
: In Article<tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>,
: > I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
: > of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
: > surrender. Now, normally I would not believe for a moment what on
: Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
: Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
: bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
: news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
: second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
: the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
: but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
: U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam Declaration
in late July 1945, three days after it had been received. The rejection
was delivered to the Allies via the Vatican and Radio Tokyo within 24
hours of the government's decision. Prime Minister Suzuki went so far as
to say that not only would the Japanese 'mokusatsu' the Declaration but
that the government intended on pursuing the war 'to a successul conclusion'.
It was only with the Emperor's intercession after the second bombing
that the Japanese government agreed to capitulate and the surrender
announcement was made on 15 Aug 1945, a week after the Nagasaki bombing.
It is true, however, that the Soviets continued fighting the Japanese
Kwangtung army for another week or so in Manuchuria after the GoJ's
surrender announcement.
--
\|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
"@'/ ,. \`@" | dee...@mm.com
/_| \__/ |_\ | 7361...@compuserv.com
\__U_/ | steve.s...@tclbbs.com
j...@os2bbs.com
In <NEWTNews.8332891...@pc240-9.elmira.twcable.com>, Raymond Sirois <rsi...@elmira.twcable.com> writes:
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
>bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
You could believe that, but you would be wrong. Where were you last
summer when the papers were full of 50th anniversary stories?
------------------------------ "If you once forfeit the confidence of
John Varela j...@os2bbs.com your fellow citizens, you can never regain
------------------------------ their respect and esteem." -- A. Lincoln
Cal lovering
Raymond Sirois <rsi...@elmira.twcable.com> wrote:
>I
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
>bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
>news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
>second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
>the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
>but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
>U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
> -==*>Ray<*==-
I read somewhere and now can't remember where that the "unconditional"
surrender in Tokyo Bay wasn't unconditional. There was at least one
condition, and to the best of my knowledge this is true, that the
Emperor not be tried as a "War Criminal".
Additionally, that these terms of surrender where offered to the
allies as early as 43 but we insisted on "unconditional" surrender.
Is any of this true? Or once again the truth is something that is
neither balck or white, only in shades of gray and then never seen the
same from different directions.
Thanks
nigu
Raymond Sirois wrote:
>
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
> Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
> bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
> news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
> second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
> the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
> but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
> U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
The point is why did they drop the second mass destructive weapon, when Hiroshima was already wiped
out? In the first place, why was it decided that they must nuke two places? Did they simply want to
test two versions of the atomic bomb? 2 diff bomb for 2 diff place. So die die also must drop.
I think if the US go to war now with N.Korea, we can see them dropping thousands of bombs before
N.Korea's surrender is heard. At least it'll be officially recorded as that. And that is what our
decendents will learn from their history books.
Bruce Lewis
dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) wrote:
>Prime Minister Suzuki went so far as
>to say that not only would the Japanese 'mokusatsu' the Declaration
What's worse, his choice of the verb "mokusatsu" indicates
contempt for the object or entity being rejected--an unfortunate
choice of words.
*******************************************
Bruce Lewis帰merican Without Tears
*******************************************
Currently writing/drawing STAR BLAZERS
comics for Argo Press鈎uy one, won't you?
*******************************************
Celebrate Insectoid-American Heritage Day!
"It's Great to be a Gray!" 7 July 1996
*******************************************
Dave Wilton
In <NEWTNews.8332891...@pc240-9.elmira.twcable.com>
Raymond Sirois <rsi...@elmira.twcable.com> writes:
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that
>the Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior
>to the bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in
>1945, however, news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until
>some time AFTER the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore
>there is some justification on the Japanese' part that they feel they
>were bombed after having surrendered, but the U.S. cannot be faulted
>on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the U.S. did not yet know
>that the Japanese had capitulated.
From _Eagle Against the Sun_, Ronald H. Spector, Vintage Books, 1985:
"Two days after the Hiroshima bombing, Russia declared war on
Japan. That same evening, a second B-29 left Tinian with a second
atomic bomb. A few hours later Nagasaki lay in ruins: a further 35,000
people had perished.
"Just a few hours before the bomb fell on Nagasaki, the Supreme
Council for the Direction of the War had convened at Togo's urging to
discuss acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. Arguments continued for
hours, but even the grim news of Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not induce
the military representatives to agree that the war should be ended--at
least not on the basis of the Potsdam conditions alone.
"At this critical juncture the Emperor once again intervened.
Meeting with the Supreme Council late on the evening of August 9, His
Majesty expressed his desire that Japan accept the Potsdam terms with
the sole reservation that the imperial institution be preserved. The
following day, August 10, the Japanese government announced its
acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration..."
A ceasefire was set for 15 August. Formal surrender ceremonies were
conducted on 2 September. The Japanese government did *not* decide to
surrender until after the Nagasaki bomb had been dropped. Communication
in 1945 was generally by radio, meaning that it was essentially
instantaneous. Delays in getting the message to Truman of more than a
few hours are not plausible.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
LRVvsPCC
unfortunetly they were importing the bomb from germany when the war in
europe ended and the german sub surendered to the americans question what
would the nicepeace loving japanesse do with a bomb lol
george e hale
Gary Mathews
In Article <tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>, from nobody:
> I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
> of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
> surrender.
Actually no. There was no surrender until we gave them the Byrnes' Note.
But we did send over 1000 planes to bomb them on Aug 14th while
their surrender note was on its way to the Allies and our New York times
were reporting their surrender.
"New York Times, Sat., Aug. 11
The Japanese Government has offered to surrender under an
interpretation of the Potsdam ultimatum that would leave the Emperor's
sovereignty unimpaired."
"New York Times, Sun., Aug. 12
The Allied powers have agreed to the Japanese proposal to surrender on
the basis of the Potsdam ultimatum, but on the condition that the Japanese
Emperor come under the authority of the Allied Commander in Chief to act as
his agent to assure the full accomplishment of the armistice terms."
"Tues., Aug. 14
At 2:49 P. M. today Tokyo time (1:49 A.M., EWT), Domei announced that
Japan had decided to accept the Allies' surrender terms in the war that she
had entered three years eight months and seven days earlier...."
Walter Eric Johnson
nigu (elm...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
: The point is why did they drop the second mass
: destructive weapon, when Hiroshima was already wiped
: out? In the first place, why was it decided that they
: must nuke two places? Did they simply want to
: test two versions of the atomic bomb? 2 diff
: bomb for 2 diff place. So die die also must drop.
The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
not taken.
: I think if the US go to war now with N.Korea, we
: can see them dropping thousands of bombs before
: N.Korea's surrender is heard. At least it'll be
: officially recorded as that. And that is what our
: decendents will learn from their history books.
Huh? What does this have to do with the Japanese
surrender?
Eric Johnson
kathy.hu...@sunysb.edu
In <31ABA8...@pacific.net.sg>, nigu <elm...@pacific.net.sg> writes:
>Raymond Sirois wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>> Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
Ad infinitum.
There will not be any confrontation with N. Korea unless THEY want it.
And having ASKED for it, we would be morally right in protecting our friends,
yes? You better believe it!
Peace
P.S. You better believe it
Douglas B. Smith
In <4oh6ln$o...@abel.cc.sunysb.edu> kathy.hu...@sunysb.edu writes:
>There will not be any confrontation with N. Korea unless THEY want it.
>And having ASKED for it, we would be morally right in protecting our
friends,
>yes? You better believe it!
>
>Peace
>
>P.S. You better believe it
And Smitty replies:
Sounds like sabre-rattling from an armchair warrior to me.
Actually, they say that the only thing that kept Kim Il Sung from
moving south when we were occupied with the Iraqi Army was all the news
footage from CNN showing the pinpoint accuracy of air-delivered
weapons. Can you imagine the old guy saying, "They can do that?
Woahhhhhh!" Like Teddy said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
Frankly, after having been in one, I'm not sure there's anything
morally right in a war, whether you're helping friends or not.
Smitty/98C3PRU (retired)
3rd SFG(A) FOB
King Fahd International Airport, Jan-Apr '91
"The home under the dome."
Soo Lee
On 29 May 1996 13:32:59 GMT, mus...@ix.netcom.com(Douglas B. Smith )
wrote:
>In <4oh6ln$o...@abel.cc.sunysb.edu> kathy.hu...@sunysb.edu writes:
>
>>There will not be any confrontation with N. Korea unless THEY want it.
>>And having ASKED for it, we would be morally right in protecting our
>friends,
>>yes? You better believe it!
>>
>>Peace
>>
>>P.S. You better believe it
>
>And Smitty replies:
>
> Sounds like sabre-rattling from an armchair warrior to me.
Bingo. Why this talk about bombing N. Korea? The chances are, it
will implode, given internal economic situation.
>Actually, they say that the only thing that kept Kim Il Sung from
>moving south when we were occupied with the Iraqi Army was all the news
>footage from CNN showing the pinpoint accuracy of air-delivered
>weapons. Can you imagine the old guy saying, "They can do that?
>Woahhhhhh!" Like Teddy said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
>Frankly, after having been in one, I'm not sure there's anything
>morally right in a war, whether you're helping friends or not.
--
"Charlie Sheen,
Ben Vereen,
Shrink to size of lima bean!"
Angus Johnston
wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) writes:
> nigu (elm...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
>
> : The point is why did they drop the second mass
> : destructive weapon, when Hiroshima was already wiped
> : out? In the first place, why was it decided that they
> : must nuke two places? Did they simply want to
> : test two versions of the atomic bomb? 2 diff
> : bomb for 2 diff place. So die die also must drop.
>
> The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
> not taken.
Well, sort of. The US planned the bombings as a one-two punch, and
didn't really pursue the question of a surrender before Nagasaki. So
your response doesn't really answer Nigu's question.
Groups trimmed.
--
Angus Johnston
http://www.panix.com/~angusj
Cal lovering
ima...@dialnet.net (Nomad9) wrote:
>No.
>All governments tell the truth...ALL THE TIME!
>Didn't you learn that in school?
The truth only comes in in one color, the color the winner wants to
paint it in.
The truth
The real truth
But not the whole truth
Cal lovering
mus...@ix.netcom.com(Douglas B. Smith ) wrote:
>In <4oh6ln$o...@abel.cc.sunysb.edu> kathy.hu...@sunysb.edu writes:
>>There will not be any confrontation with N. Korea unless THEY want it.
>>And having ASKED for it, we would be morally right in protecting our
>friends,
>>yes? You better believe it!
>>
>>Peace
>>
>>P.S. You better believe it
It's always easy for the ones you don't know what its about to say
let's go kick some ass but..... The only friends I have are the ones
that do and did the dying in the wars.
Smitty!
101st here.
The guys in the dust east of the Dome
Camp Eagle Aug 90 to Apr 91
Steven T. Gibbs
I read somewhere and now can't remember where that the "unconditional"
> surrender in Tokyo Bay wasn't unconditional. There was at least one
> condition, and to the best of my knowledge this is true, that the
> Emperor not be tried as a "War Criminal".
>
> Additionally, that these terms of surrender where offered to the
> allies as early as 43 but we insisted on "unconditional" surrender.
>
I think that the only terms the Japanese empire would have acceded to in
1943 would be a cessation of hostilities leaving them in possession of
just about the entire western Pacific region including China, Indochina,
Burma, the Phillippines etc. A strong foe, the issue was still in doubt
in 1943-tho the swing was in favor of the allies
>
Donald M. Weaver
Raymond Sirois <rsi...@elmira.twcable.com> wrote:
>In Article<tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>,
>> I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
>> of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
>> surrender. Now, normally I would not believe for a moment what on
>> the face of it seems to be a totally preposterous claim, but past
>> talks with people from Singapore indicate that they are an
>> essentially brainwashed people, they do not think at all
>> differently and have the same opinions on most subjects (even
>> down to saying the exact same things), and do not oppose even
>> preposterous policies of their government such as outlawing
>> chewing gum. So it's not like I can discount this story and tell
>> myself that a government, especially that government, would not
>> lie to its people.
>>
>> How far would they go? Outright lying to their people? About
>> something so major? Is there any truth to what I heard?
>>
>> I apologize for forging this post, but I think people can realize
>> that it is necessary - If what I heard is not true, I will no
>> doubt anger people because I dared believe something bad about
>> their government, and if what I heard is true, I will no doubt
>> anger people because I dared question their government and
>> education. I have no desire to be subjected to harassment because
>> of what I say on Usenet, nor do I wish to be mailbombed (again) or
>> have myself or others on the same system subjected to other
>> denial-of-service attacks.
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
>bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
>news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
>second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
>the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
>but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
>U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
> -==*>Ray<*==-
I'm not sure about whether the U.S. bombed Nagasaki before or after
Japanese surrender. However, I too have heard that Japanese children
aren't taught the grim realities of WWII. Japanese history tends to
portray the Allies as the aggressors but to my understanding there has
been some effort on the Japanese part to rectify this discrepancy.
Donald M. Weaver
ig...@cleveland.freenet.edu
*******************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."
- Samuel Johnson, 1707 - 1784
Ian Munro
Martin Tolton (m...@kefron.portal.ca) wrote:
: This question askes people who have knowlege in a particular field to
: confirm or deny something that he or she heard, ie. not something they
: made up.
Give me a fucking break, Martin. This was a lame piece of flame-bait
designed to elicit exactly those enraged responses you deplore.
Somewhere the orginal poster is wetting his pants in glee.
Ian "followups" Munro
--
"'In considering this strangely neglected topic,' it began. This what
neglected topic? This strangely what topic? This strangely neglected
what?"--Kingsley Amis
Dave Wilton
In <4oilr0$c...@news1.panix.com> ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston)
writes:
>Well, sort of. The US planned the bombings as a one-two punch, and
>didn't really pursue the question of a surrender before Nagasaki.
That is not really accurate. What is more accurate is that Japan did
not accede to US conditions for surrender until after Nagasaki.
In 1943, the State Dept recommended retaining the imperial system,
believing that it would be a stabilizing force in post-war Japan. The
US military concurred with this recommendation.
In February 1945, Churchill recommended to Roosevelt that mitigating
the unconditional surrender formula might shorten the war. Gen.
Marshall and Adm. Leahy concurred and recommended the emperor be
retained.
The original draft of the Potsdam Declaration held out hope for
retaining the emperor in a constitutional monarchy. Unfortunately,
Truman's Secretary of State Byrnes saw this as a political disaster
(the majority of the American public saw Hirohito as a prime cause of
the war) and amended the declaration to stay true to the idea of
unconditional surrender.
The Japanese for their part, engaged in negotiations with the Russians
to keep them out of the war and never in those negotiations came close
to accepting unconditional surrender. The US, pretty well informed on
developments through cryptographic intercepts, interpreted this as
balking at unconditional surrender and trying to make peace first with
Russia so that they could fight on against the US.
The Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration with a term that could be
interpreted as saying they considered it "of no great value" or could
mean that they treated it with "silent contempt." The Japanese probably
meant the former (i.e., this public posturing is not helpful, let us
preserve our dignity and we will surrender), the US thought they meant
the latter (i.e., screw you). (This is a great tactic of diplomacy,
using a word that can be interpreted satisfactorily by all sides,
unfortunately it was a disaster in this case.)
The bombs were dropped. The Japanese cabinet remained deadlocked.
Hirohito broke the deadlock and instructed his advisors to accept
surrender under one condition--that the imperial institution would be
retained. Since most of his advisors had independently decided that
this was something the US would probably do anyway, Truman decided it
was close enough to unconditional to count and accepted the surrender.
The sad thing is that if the Japanese had ever come close to saying
that surrender with a few mild conditions was acceptable, the war would
have ended without the atomic bombings. Likewise, if Byrnes had been
less concerned about the polls and more concerned with ending the war
quickly and on favorable terms, the US would not have been obstinate.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Steve Sundberg
Angus Johnston (ang...@panix.com) wrote:
: wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) writes:
: >
: > The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
: > not taken.
: Well, sort of. The US planned the bombings as a one-two punch, and
: didn't really pursue the question of a surrender before Nagasaki. So
: your response doesn't really answer Nigu's question.
'...didn't really pursue the question of surrender before Nagasaki'?
What kind of bunk is this? Have you not heard of the Potsdam
Declaration, delivered to the Japanese a full two weeks before the
Hiroshima bombing-- indeed more than a week before any of the bomb parts
even arrived at Tinian?
Les
In article <4oilr0$c...@news1.panix.com>, ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston)
<NEWTNews.8332891...@pc240-9.elmira.twcable.com>
<31ABA8...@pacific.net.sg> <4ogtni$7...@news.tamu.edu> wrote:
(stuff deleted)
>> The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
>> not taken.
>Well, sort of. The US planned the bombings as a one-two punch, and
>didn't really pursue the question of a surrender before Nagasaki. So
>your response doesn't really answer Nigu's question.
(stuff deleted)
Incorrect. The US again offered Japan the chance to surrender
after Hiroshima was bombed. The Japanese gave no response.
--
"A typical Parlimentary compromise was reached...The admiralty wanted
six battleships, the economists offered four, and we finally agreed
on eight." -- Winston Churchill, "The World Crisis"
Les
In article <4ois2s$a...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, dwi...@ix.netcom.com(Dave Wilton) wrote:
(stuff deleted)
>The original draft of the Potsdam Declaration held out hope for
>retaining the emperor in a constitutional monarchy. Unfortunately,
>Truman's Secretary of State Byrnes saw this as a political disaster
>(the majority of the American public saw Hirohito as a prime cause of
>the war) and amended the declaration to stay true to the idea of
>unconditional surrender.
Actually, the Potsdam Declaration was a list of conditions. The
only "unconditional" part was for the unconditional surrender of
Japan's military.
(stuff deleted)
>The Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration with a term that could be
>interpreted as saying they considered it "of no great value" or could
>mean that they treated it with "silent contempt." The Japanese probably
>meant the former (i.e., this public posturing is not helpful, let us
>preserve our dignity and we will surrender), the US thought they meant
>the latter (i.e., screw you). (This is a great tactic of diplomacy,
>using a word that can be interpreted satisfactorily by all sides,
>unfortunately it was a disaster in this case.)
Actually, the Japanese PM said three things about the Potsdam
Declaration (paraphrased):
- "We see nothing of value in the Potsdam Declaration."
- "We will {kill it with silence}" The {} verb could either
stand for "refrain from comment" or, more commonly,
"ignore". The Japanese themselves translated the term into
English as "ignore".
- "We will continue to fight until victory."
This was the only answer the US got to the Potsdam declaration
prior to the atomic bombs. The reason why the US "misunderstood"
the second term was that it made no sense to say: "The
Declaration was worthless, we'll consider it, and we'll
fight on to victory."
>The bombs were dropped. The Japanese cabinet remained deadlocked.
>Hirohito broke the deadlock and instructed his advisors to accept
>surrender under one condition--that the imperial institution would be
>retained. Since most of his advisors had independently decided that
>this was something the US would probably do anyway, Truman decided it
>was close enough to unconditional to count and accepted the surrender.
>The sad thing is that if the Japanese had ever come close to saying
>that surrender with a few mild conditions was acceptable, the war would
>have ended without the atomic bombings. Likewise, if Byrnes had been
>less concerned about the polls and more concerned with ending the war
>quickly and on favorable terms, the US would not have been obstinate.
(.sig deleted)
A while back Larry Jewell posted the Potsdam Declaration, the
Japanese counter-proposal, and the US acceptance. Here it is again:
[Begin}
(1) PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER
(2) OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
(3) JAPANESE ACCEPTANCE OF POTSDAM DECLARTION
----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER
(The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 318, July 29,
1945)
(1) We - the President of the United States, the President of
the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime
Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions
of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be
given an opportunity to end this war.
(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United
States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced
by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to
strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is
sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied
Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to
resist.
(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to
the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth
in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The
might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than
that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily
laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of
the whole German people. The full application of our military
power, backed by our resolve, WILL mean the inevitable and
complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as
inevitably the utter destruction of the Japanese homeland.
(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will
continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic
advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the
Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she
will follow the path of reason.
(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them.
There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and
influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of
Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new
order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until
irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
(7) Until such a new order is established AND until there is
convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed,
points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies
shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic
objectives we are here setting forth.
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and
Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu,
Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we
determine.
(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely
disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the
opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a
race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted
out to all war criminals, including those who have visited
cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall
remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of
democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of
speech, of religion and of thought, as well as respect for the
fundamental human rights, shall be established.
(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as
will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just
reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to
rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from
control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese
participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from
Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and
there has been established, in accordance with the freely
expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and
responsible Government.
(13) We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the
unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to
provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in
such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter
destruction.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(2) OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
(Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 320, Aug. 12,
1945)
August 10, 1945
Sir;
I have the honor to inform you that the Japanese Minister in
Switzerland, upon instructions received from his Government, has
requested the Swiss Political Department to advise the
Government of the United States of America of the following:
"In obedience to the gracious command of His Majesty the Emperor
who, ever anxious to enhance the cause of world peace, desires
earnestly to bring about a speedy termination of hostilities
with a view to saving mankind from the calamities to be imposed
upon them by further continuation of the war, the Japanese
Government several weeks ago asked the Soviet Government, with
which neutral relations then prevailed, to render good offices
in restoring peace vis a vis the enemy powers. Unfortunately,
these efforts in the interest of peace having failed, the
Japanese Government in conformity with the august wish of His
Majesty to restore the general peace and desiring to put an end
to the untold sufferings entailed by war as quickly as possible,
have decided upon the following.
"The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms
enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam
on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the
United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to
by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said
declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the
prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.
"The Japanese Government sincerely hope that this understanding
is warranted and desire keenly that an explicit indication to
that effect will be speedily forthcoming."
In transmitting the above message the Japanese Minister added
that his Government begs the Government of the United States to
forward its answer through the intermediary of Switzerland.
Similar requests are being transmitted to the Governments of
Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
through the intermediary of Sweden, as well as to the Government
of China through the intermediary of Switzerland. The Chinese
Minister at Berne has already been informed of the foregoing
through the channel of the Swiss Political Department.
Please be assured that I am at your disposal at any time to
accept for and forward to my Government the reply of Government
of the United States.
Accept (etc.)
Grassli,
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
The Honorable James F. Byrnes
Secretary of State
August 11, 1945
Sir:
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of August
10, and in reply to inform you that the President of the United
States has directed me to send you for transmission to the
Japanese Government the following message on behalf of the
Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China:
"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the
terms of the Potsdam proclamation but containing the statement,
'with the understanding that the said declaration does not
comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His
Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:
"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and
the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to
the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such
steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.
"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the
signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry
out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue
his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air
authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever
located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms,
and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may
require to give effect to the surrender terms.
"Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese Government shall
transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of
safety, as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard
Allied transports.
"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance
with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely
expressed will of the Japanese people.
"The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan
until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are
achieved."
Accept (etc.)
James F. Byrnes
Secretary of State
Mr. Max Grassli
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
----------------------------------------------------------------
(3) JAPANESE ACCEPTANCE OF POTSDAM DECLARTION
Statement by the President
(The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. No. 321, Aug. 19, 1945)
I have received this afternoon a message from the Japanese
Government in reply to the message forwarded to that Government
by the Secretary of State on August 11. I deem this reply a
full acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which specifies the
unconditional surrender of Japan. In the reply there is no
qualification.
Arrangement are now being made for the formal signing of
surrender terms at the earliest possible moment.
General Douglas MacArthur has been appointed the Supreme Allied
Commander to receive the Japanese surrender. Great Britain,
Russia, and China will be represented by high-ranking officers.
Meanwhile, the Allied armed forces have been ordered to suspend
offensive action.
The proclamation of V-J Day must wait upon the formal signing of
the surrender terms by Japan.
Following is the Japanese Government's message accepting our
terms:
"Communication of the Japanese Government of August 14, 1945,
addressed to the Governments of the United States, Great
Britain, the Soviet Union, and China:
"With reference to the Japanese Government's note of August 10
regarding their acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam
declaration and the reply of the Governments of the United
States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China sent by
American Secretary of State Byrnes under the date of August 11,
the Japanese Government have the honor to communicate to the
Government of the four powers as follows:
"1. His Majesty the Emperor has issued an Imperial rescript
regarding Japan's acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam
declaration.
"2. His Majesty the Emperor is prepared to authorize and ensure
the signature by his Government and the Imperial General
Headquarters of the necessary terms for carrying out the
provision of the Potsdam declaration. His Majesty is also
prepared to issue his commands to all the military, naval, and
air authorities of Japan and all the forces under their control
wherever located to cease active operations, to surrender arms
and to issue such other orders as may be required by the Supreme
Commander of the Allied Forces for the execution of the above-
mentioned terms."
EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN SWISS CHARGE AND SECRETARY OF STATE
August 14, 1945
Sir:
I have the honor to refer to your note of August 11, in which
you requested me to transmit to my Government the reply of the
Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China to the message from the
Japanese Governments which was communicated in my note of August
10.
At 20.10 today (Swiss Time) the Japanese Minister to Switzerland
conveyed the following written statement to the Swiss Government
for transmission to the four Allied governments:
Accept (etc.)
Grassli
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
August 14, 1945.
Sir:
With reference to your communication of today's date,
transmitting the reply of the Japanese Government to the
communication which I sent through you to the Japanese
Government on August 11, on behalf of the Governments of the
United States, China, the United Kingdom, and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, which I regard as full acceptance of
the Potsdam Declaration and of my statement of August 11, 1945,
I have the honor to inform you that the President of the United
States has directed that the following message be sent to you
for transmission to the Japanese Government:
"You are to proceed as follows:
"(1) Direct prompt cessation of hostilities by Japanese forces,
informing the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers of the
effective date and hour of such cessation.
"(2) Send emissaries at once to the Supreme Commander for the
Allied Powers with information of the disposition of the
Japanese forces and commanders, and fully empowered to make any
arrangements directed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied
Powers to enable him and his accompanying forces to arrive at
the place designated by him to receive the formal surrender.
"(3) For the purpose of receiving such surrender and carrying it
into effect, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur has been
designated as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and
he will notify the Japanese Government of the time, place and
other details of the formal surrender."
Accept (etc.)
James F. Byrnes
Secretary of State.
Max Grassli, Esquire
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
----------------------------------------------------------------
[End Inclusion]
Rick Ballard
The above exerpts apparently likes to rely on the simple adage "History is written
by the victors." This may be true to a small extent, but keep in mind that History
is NOT written by governments, except those of a totalitarian bent (Nazi Germany,
USSR, PRC, etc.), who require a strong propaganda apparat to keep their populace
ignorant of how badly they're being screwed.
Fortunately, most of the world is not like that. History is written by individuals
who do the research, look for the clues, and are not fearful of pissing of the
boogey-man government MIBS's (Men In Black Suits). If a dozen books are published
in a dozen (free) countries by different people of reasonable integrity, and they
all read the same (with minor variations), then it is safe to assume that the
contents within are as true as human understanding can make it.
Anyway, that's my nickel's worth. Back off my soap-box.
Rick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Any opinions expressed in the above message are my own, and does not
indicate any views supported by NASA or Sverdrup Technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjit Mathews USG
The US didn't drop both bombs at the same time. They waited two weeks for a
surrender before dropping the second one.
In article <31ABA8...@pacific.net.sg>, nigu <elm...@pacific.net.sg> writes:
|> Raymond Sirois wrote:
|> >
|> > Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
|> > Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
|> > bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
|> > news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
|> > second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
|> > the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
|> > but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
|> > U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
|>
|> The point is why did they drop the second mass destructive weapon, when Hiroshima was already wiped
|> out? In the first place, why was it decided that they must nuke two places? Did they simply want to
|> test two versions of the atomic bomb? 2 diff bomb for 2 diff place. So die die also must drop.
|>
|> I think if the US go to war now with N.Korea, we can see them dropping thousands of bombs before
|> N.Korea's surrender is heard. At least it'll be officially recorded as that. And that is what our
|> decendents will learn from their history books.
--
Ranjit Mathews ran...@zk3.dec.com DTN 881-0071 (603) 881 0071
Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua, NH 03062
Ranjit Mathews USG
Was it only 2 days after the first bomb ? Apologies for my earlier posting - I
thought it was two weeks. In any case, the fact still remains that they were
not dropped simultaneously.
Xizor
On 30 May 1996 16:37:07 GMT, ran...@fwasted.zk3.dec.com (Ranjit
Mathews USG) wrote:
>The US didn't drop both bombs at the same time. They waited two weeks for a
>surrender before dropping the second one.
I think this is wrong.
First bomb, 6th August 1945.
Second Bomb, 9th August 1945.
fnord,
Xizor
(red...@singnet.com.sg)
Ranjit Mathews USG
This is an eyeopener. It does, indeed, seem that Nagasaki was bombed while
surrender was imminent. Not cricket at all!
In article <4ogqu3$o...@news.ysu.edu>, ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Gary Mathews) writes:
|>
|>
|> In Article <tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>, from nobody:
|>
|> > I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
|> > of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
|> > surrender.
|>
|> Actually no. There was no surrender until we gave them the Byrnes' Note.
|> But we did send over 1000 planes to bomb them on Aug 14th while
|> their surrender note was on its way to the Allies and our New York times
|> were reporting their surrender.
|>
|>
|> "New York Times, Sat., Aug. 11
|>
|> The Japanese Government has offered to surrender under an
|> interpretation of the Potsdam ultimatum that would leave the Emperor's
|> sovereignty unimpaired."
|>
|> "New York Times, Sun., Aug. 12
|>
|> The Allied powers have agreed to the Japanese proposal to surrender on
|> the basis of the Potsdam ultimatum, but on the condition that the Japanese
|> Emperor come under the authority of the Allied Commander in Chief to act as
|> his agent to assure the full accomplishment of the armistice terms."
|>
|> "Tues., Aug. 14
|>
|> At 2:49 P. M. today Tokyo time (1:49 A.M., EWT), Domei announced that
|> Japan had decided to accept the Allies' surrender terms in the war that she
|> had entered three years eight months and seven days earlier...."
|>
--
Richard Joseph Rodriguez Jr
When did Singapore fall into Allied hands? The original post was about
school children in Singapore being taught that the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki took place after Japanese surrender. If Singapore was
liberated before those bombings, then from their viewpoint, the bombings
did indeed happen after Japanese surrender of control over Singapore. It
may be a bit egocentric to think once an army is kicked out of your
country, the problem is over, but it would be a correct statement to say
that nuclear bombings happened after the war was over for Singapore.
Tom Beam
In <31ade242...@news.singnet.com.sg> red...@singnet.com.sg
(Xizor) writes:
>
>On 30 May 1996 16:37:07 GMT, ran...@fwasted.zk3.dec.com (Ranjit
>Mathews USG) wrote:
>
>>The US didn't drop both bombs at the same time. They waited two weeks
for a
>>surrender before dropping the second one.
>
>I think this is wrong.
>
>First bomb, 6th August 1945.
>
>Second Bomb, 9th August 1945.
Too bad we didn't have more than two bombs to test on the little
fuckers. If we would have had 15 or 20 that would have been better.
Uppity fuckers.
--
METALBAG
This .sig brought to you courtesy of METALBAG's work computer.
Now you know how much I'm fucking off while making money.
Garbage truck driver of the informationsuperhighway.
"Never trust someone who can bleed for five days and not die".
onee...@hooked.net
Robert B. Kennedy
Raymond Sirois (rsi...@elmira.twcable.com) wrote:
: Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
: Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
: bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
: news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
: second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
: the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
: but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
: U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
: -==*>Ray<*==-
You must remember that there were TWO factions in the Japanese
government. One called for the immediate surrender of Japan to the
allies after Hiroshima (smart move). The other faction lead mostly by
military men was determined to fight down to the very last man, woman and
child. Literally. They saw hoards of Japanese women and children
fending off the allies with guns and pointy sticks. These are the guys
who mostly commited suicide after the war.
So BOTH statements could be true.
There probably were parts of the Japanese government who were
willing to surrender.
There also were parts of the government that weren't going to
surrender.
I think there was also a coupe attempt over this issue too...but
I could be wrong.
--
Robert Kennedy: Sysop: Birds On A Wire AVIAN BBS!!! (206)557-0318,14.4,8n1
http://www.seattleu.edu/~rknndy/robert.html
"Karma can only be aportioned by the cosmos!" -Homer Simpson-
Eddy Tanumihardja
Richard Joseph Rodriguez Jr (rjro...@trumpet.aix.calpoly.edu) wrote:
: When did Singapore fall into Allied hands?
Never. The Allies returned to Singapore after the surrender.
: The original post was about
--
******************************************
* email : te...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg *
******************************************
Jussa dude
In article <4ok4qp$e...@news.sphere.ad.jp>, la...@iac.co.jp (Lance
Cummings) writes:
>What kind of logic is this? Tokyo was firebombed to the ground in
>March. That didn't prompt a surrender. There was nothing in the
>conduct of the Japanese government that suggested that one atomic
>demonstration -- on a real target or a dummy -- was going to be enough
>to end the war. For that matter, nobody knew if the second one was
>going to do it. Later there would have been a third, of course, had
>the second one not done it.
There are so many reasons for the way it came off - some of them are as
follows:
1) The US had the option of dropping a nuke on an uninhabited atoll with
fair warning to the Japanese government, (not the pathetically brainwashed
population), to watch and see what could happen to a major city.
The reasons against this are obvious:The technology was new and
unreliable. Should the test have resulted in a dud, nothing would have
been accomplished. Also, the Japanese government at the time was so
fervently nationalist and militarist that the chances of them surrending
in the face of common sense was a remote possibility. The war was already
lost, and yet, these flag waving monsters continued to send young men to
meaningless deaths and allowed the civilian population to starve and burn
instead of facing reality and capitulating. You must remember, these were
the leaders who were sending droves of young men on suicide missions that
were almost never effective, and yet they continued to send more.
An atrocity against humanity was the only way of preventing a larger
atrocity against humanity. The estimated cost in human life should the US
have invaded the mainland was in the millions, a good percentage of this
number in the live of US soldiers' - if you were in Harry Trumann's shoes,
what would you have done?).
2) At the time, there were only two bombs available.If the first two were
wasted in demonstration against uninhabited lands without a positive
result from the lunatics who controlled Japan at the time, there was no
recourse to a decision of no surrender.
Tragically for the innocent inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their
suffering and death brought about the saving of a much larger number of
lives, Japanese and American.
Weird logic, I know, but do the math and I think you'll agree there was no
other way out.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <4okirj$6...@zk2nws.zko.dec.com>, Ranjit Mathews USG
<ran...@fwasted.zk3.dec.com> wrote:
>The US didn't drop both bombs at the same time. They waited two weeks for a
>surrender before dropping the second one.
Shortest two weeks on record. But they did give plenty of time for a
surrender. This single fact alone ought to demolish the "we should
have done a demo blast on an uninhabited island" crowd of historians,
but I guess one can never underestimate the willful ignorance of an
academic.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sundberg
Ranjit Mathews USG (ran...@fwasted.zk3.dec.com) wrote:
: This is an eyeopener. It does, indeed, seem that Nagasaki was bombed while
: surrender was imminent. Not cricket at all!
How do you mean? Nagasaki was bombed on 9 Aug. The New York Times
article regarding Japanese intentions is dated 11 Aug (12 Aug, Japan
time). I think you are confusing the subsequent bombing of Tokyo with an
atomic bombing that did not occur.
: |> "New York Times, Sat., Aug. 11
: |>
: |> The Japanese Government has offered to surrender under an
: |> interpretation of the Potsdam ultimatum that would leave the Emperor's
: |> sovereignty unimpaired."
: |>
: |> "New York Times, Sun., Aug. 12
: |>
: |> The Allied powers have agreed to the Japanese proposal to surrender on
: |> the basis of the Potsdam ultimatum, but on the condition that the Japanese
: |> Emperor come under the authority of the Allied Commander in Chief to act as
: |> his agent to assure the full accomplishment of the armistice terms."
: |>
: |> "Tues., Aug. 14
: |>
: |> At 2:49 P. M. today Tokyo time (1:49 A.M., EWT), Domei announced that
: |> Japan had decided to accept the Allies' surrender terms in the war that she
: |> had entered three years eight months and seven days earlier...."
--
\|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
Steve Sundberg
: and Nagasaki took place after Japanese surrender. If Singapore was
: liberated before those bombings, then from their viewpoint, the bombings
: did indeed happen after Japanese surrender of control over Singapore. It
: may be a bit egocentric to think once an army is kicked out of your
: country, the problem is over, but it would be a correct statement to say
: that nuclear bombings happened after the war was over for Singapore.
There were no British (or other Allied) forces in place in Malaya or
Singapore on 15 Aug. Two fleets set sail from India to occupy Penang and
Singapore on that date but a complication arose when it was announced
that cease-fire orders would not be received by the Japanese in all war
zones until the 22nd. Then MacArthur ordered that no surrenders were to
be signed and no landings made on enemy occupied territory until he had
signed the main surrender of Japan in Tokyo. The landing on Penang
eventually occurred on 1 Sept, and the formal surrender of Japanese
forces in Singapore occurred on 4 Sept with the first Allied troops
beginning reoccupation of the island at 11 o'clock on 5 Sept 1945.
[source-- The Forgotten Fleet: The Story of the British Pacific Fleet
1944-45, John Winton, 1969.]
As you can see, the war was 'over' in Tokyo even before it was officially
over in Singapore.
Gary Mathews
In a previous article, dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) says:
>Raymond Sirois (rsi...@elmira.twcable.com) wrote:
>
>: In Article<tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>,
>: > I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
>: > of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
>: > surrender. Now, normally I would not believe for a moment what on
>
>: Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>: Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
>: bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
>: news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
>: second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
>: the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
>: but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
>: U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
>
>Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam Declaration
>in late July 1945, three days after it had been received. The rejection
>was delivered to the Allies via the Vatican and Radio Tokyo within 24
>hours of the government's decision.
"The rejection was delivered to the Allies via the Vatican..."
And your source for this?
Gary Mathews
In a previous article, bc...@deltanet.com (Bruce Lewis) says:
>dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) wrote:
>
>>Prime Minister Suzuki went so far as
>>to say that not only would the Japanese 'mokusatsu' the Declaration
>
>What's worse, his choice of the verb "mokusatsu" indicates
>contempt for the object or entity being rejected--an unfortunate
>choice of words.
Mokusatsu could also means "To withhold comment."
(See, "Mokusatsu,' Japanese Response to the Potsdam Declaration' Pacific
Historical Review vol. 19, no. 4, pp.409-14.).
Gary Mathews
In an article ran...@fwasted.zk3.dec.com (Ranjit Mathews USG) writes:
>This is an eyeopener. It does, indeed, seem that Nagasaki was bombed while
>surrender was imminent. Not cricket at all!
Not sure about Nagasaki. However, these are the facts;
Tsuchizakiminato(northern Japan), Isesaki, and Tokyo, were bombed.
This was after their annoucment(in the afternoon of Aug 14th(Japan time)):
There will be an imminent Imperial message expressing the acceptance of the
Potsdam Proclamation.
The bombs kept falling in to the early morning of Aug. 15th 1945(Japan Time).
>In article <4ogqu3$o...@news.ysu.edu>, ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Gary Mathews) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> In Article <tuesday28t...@six.thirtyone.andtwentyfiveseconds>, from nobody:
>|>
>|> > I heard that children in Singapore are taught that the US bombing
>|> > of Nagasaki near the end of World War II was _after_ the Japanese
>|> > surrender.
>|>
>|> Actually no. There was no surrender until we gave them the Byrnes' Note.
>|> But we did send over 1000 planes to bomb them on Aug 14th while
>|> their surrender note was on its way to the Allies and our New York times
>|> were reporting their surrender.
>|>
>|>
>|> "New York Times, Sat., Aug. 11
>|>
>|> The Japanese Government has offered to surrender under an
>|> interpretation of the Potsdam ultimatum that would leave the Emperor's
>|> sovereignty unimpaired."
>|>
>|> "New York Times, Sun., Aug. 12
>|>
>|> The Allied powers have agreed to the Japanese proposal to surrender on
>|> the basis of the Potsdam ultimatum, but on the condition that the Japanese
>|> Emperor come under the authority of the Allied Commander in Chief to act as
>|> his agent to assure the full accomplishment of the armistice terms."
>|>
>|> "Tues., Aug. 14
>|>
>|> At 2:49 P. M. today Tokyo time (1:49 A.M., EWT), Domei announced that
>|> Japan had decided to accept the Allies' surrender terms in the war that she
>|> had entered three years eight months and seven days earlier...."
>|>
>
>--
chuck rowe
=It was decided because 72 hours had passed, and no surrender was
=forthcoming. What part of that logic can't you understand?
After Japan was nuked and surrendered, how many other nukes have been
used in the world since? Perhaps the use of the bomb in Japan gave the
world a healthy respect for the bomb and prevented the confrontation
between capitalism and communism from ever becoming 'hot'. Can you
imagine what world history could have been if the bomb had never
been used on Japan, and the two superpowers began to mass-produce and
stockpile weapons? How much different do you think the Cuban missile
crisis would have turned out if Kruchev had never seen the destructive
potential of nuclear weapons? Surely the atomic bombing of Japan
prevented a global nuclear war.
Bruce Lewis
Rick Ballard <rick.b...@hsv.sverdrup.com> wrote:
>The above exerpts apparently likes to rely
on the simple adage "History is written
>by the victors." This may be true to a small
extent, but keep in mind that History
>is NOT written by governments, except those
of a totalitarian bent (Nazi Germany,
>USSR, PRC, etc.), who require a strong
propaganda apparat to keep their populace
>ignorant of how badly they're being screwed.
History is written by the victors, but in some cases
the victors are members of a fundamentally
honest and genuinely democratic culture that
doesn't fear the truth--no matter how unpleasant.
One need only look at the current controversies
over the teaching of history here in the U.S. to
know that the ugly things done by our nation in
the past are ANYTHING but hidden from view.
Slavery, political double-dealing, civil war
atrocities, Jim Crow, smallpox-laden blankets--
all these misdeeds are lovingly examined by mil-
lions of college professors, students, and interested
parties from every stripe. The recent brouhaha
over the way our national museum presented an
exhibit on the nuclear bombing of Japan in WWII
proves that there is NO all-powerful history-control
squad here in the States--I mean, come ON, when
something as obviously moral and justifiable as
what we did to the Japanese in WWII becomes
controversial, NOTHING is safe. (And no, I'm not
being sarcastic.)
I think we in the west have actually gone too far in
this quest for "historical honesty" via self-denigration.
Sure, we evil Europeans and Americans have done
a lot of bad things...but so has everyone. At least we
ADMIT the crappy hings we did and feel GUILTY
over them--in Japan, some government officials
refuse to admit that the rape of Nanjing and the
Bataan Death March ever took place! And a lot
of "bad" things we did really weren't so "bad" after
all.
My favorite whipping boy is colonialism. Sure,
European nations like England marched in and took
over native societies as colonies, but in addition to
greed and chauvinism, the Cecil Rhodes crowd was
also motivated by a sincere and altruistic desire to
civilize those inhabitants of the lands they conquered--
to make their lives and society more European. One
look at Africa today vs. Africa during colonial times
is enough to convince this reporter that maybe the
evil White Bwana weren't so bad after all. Nothing
the English or Belgians ever did in the name of the
White Man's Burden even comes close to the home-
made nightmares that have existed or exist today in
UgandaŠor SomaliaŠor ZaireŠor NigeriaŠor
SudanŠor LiberiaŠ
My point? Simple. History is written by the victors, yes;
but sometimes the victors are democratic societies with
a free and open press and a genuinely self-critical bent.
Far from covering up history, I think that Western
historians are far too critical about the "wrongdoings"
of our ancestors, many of whom did their "evil" deeds in
ignorance of our modern ideas of propriety or because
they genuinely felt they were doing the right thing.
'Nuff said.
*******************************************
Bruce Lewis‹American Without Tears
*******************************************
Currently writing/drawing STAR BLAZERS
comics for Argo PressŠbuy one, won't you?
*******************************************
Celebrate Insectoid-American Heritage Day!
"It's Great to be a Gray!" 7 July 1996
*******************************************
Joe Pritchard
ig...@cleveland.freenet.edu (Donald M. Weaver) wrote:
>I'm not sure about whether the U.S. bombed Nagasaki before or after
>Japanese surrender. However, I too have heard that Japanese children
>aren't taught the grim realities of WWII. Japanese history tends to
>portray the Allies as the aggressors but to my understanding there has
>been some effort on the Japanese part to rectify this discrepancy.
And there's also the possibility that the Nagasaki drop was an
opportunity to test the second bomb design. Also, a second drop
helped convince the Russians (who were now getting in on the act) that
the US had not just 1 nuclear device. In fact, I think they had three
(includig the two dropped) at thie time but the 'sabre rattling'
warning to the Soviet Union was probably equally high in teh minds of
US policy makers as was a final finishing off of the Pacific war.
Joe
Alex Hutton
Raymond Sirois <rsi...@elmira.twcable.com> wrote:
> Actually, I believe that there is some truth to the above in that the
>Japanese government HAD resolved to surrender to the Allies prior to the
>bombing of Nagasaki. Communications being such as they were in 1945, however,
>news of that resolution did not reach the Allies until some time AFTER the
>second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Therefore there is some justification on
>the Japanese' part that they feel they were bombed after having surrendered,
>but the U.S. cannot be faulted on those grounds for dropping the bomb as the
>U.S. did not yet know that the Japanese had capitulated.
oh yeah... a likely story. The US could never do anything wrong could
they?
<insert witty remark here>
Les
In article <83352137...@vantage.demon.co.uk>, j...@vantage.demon.co.uk (Joe Pritchard) wrote:
(stuff deleted)
>And there's also the possibility that the Nagasaki drop was an
>opportunity to test the second bomb design.
The Nagasaki-type of bomb had already been tested
at Trinity.
>Also, a second drop
>helped convince the Russians (who were now getting in on the act) that
>the US had not just 1 nuclear device. In fact, I think they had three
>(includig the two dropped) at thie time but the 'sabre rattling'
>warning to the Soviet Union was probably equally high in teh minds of
>US policy makers as was a final finishing off of the Pacific war.
The US started out with two Plutonium bombs and one uranium bomb.
The tested the first Plutonium bomb at Trinity (the Uranium bomb
was simpler in design, and believed to have a far better chance
of working than the Plutonium bomb). After they tested one bomb,
they used the other two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The next
A-bomb wouldn't be ready for another three weeks.
As for the idea that the bomb was dropped to intimidate the Soviets,
Marshell thought otherwise. He argued against dropping the
bombs because he didn't want the Soviets to know what the
US had.
Dick Spargur
Jussa dude (juss...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4ok4qp$e...@news.sphere.ad.jp>, la...@iac.co.jp (Lance
: Cummings) writes:
: >What kind of logic is this? Tokyo was firebombed to the ground in
: >March. That didn't prompt a surrender. There was nothing in the
: >conduct of the Japanese government that suggested that one atomic
: >demonstration -- on a real target or a dummy -- was going to be enough
: >to end the war. For that matter, nobody knew if the second one was
: >going to do it. Later there would have been a third, of course, had
: >the second one not done it.
: There are so many reasons for the way it came off - some of them are as
: follows:
: 1) The US had the option of dropping a nuke on an uninhabited atoll with
: fair warning to the Japanese government, (not the pathetically brainwashed
: population), to watch and see what could happen to a major city.
: 2) At the time, there were only two bombs available.If the first two were
: wasted in demonstration against uninhabited lands without a positive
: result from the lunatics who controlled Japan at the time, there was no
: recourse to a decision of no surrender.
Also, there was another problem with this proposal to warn the Japanese
that we would be dropping a super weapon on a designated city at at
specified time. Besides the concern that the bomb might have turned out
to be a dud, it was feared the Japanese would place American POW's in
the city or the atoll or mountain top or wherever the target was to be.
Besides, how can you credibly communicate with a bitter wartime foe?
Politically, it would be hard to justify spending all of that money (two
billion pre-inflationary dollars) and effort to make a war-shortening
super weapon and then NOT use it.
In the summer of 1945, the Second World War was nearing the end of its
sixth year. It was a terrible conflict in which tens of millions of
people had already lost their lives, an estimated fifty to sixty
million. It was not a question of taking lives or not taking lives; no
matter what, many more people were sure to die. Therefore, it was: "How
do we end this thing with as little loss of life as possible?" Not
having the benefit of fifty years of hindsight into the "bomb" and its
evils, the leaders of those infant days of the atomic age did the
logical thing. This is not to say a pretty thing, but something based
on cold logic. Was it better to continue a war and lose even more lives
to conventional means or use a new super weapon and cut your losses? It
is hard to believe that history would have been any more kind to the
leadership of 1945 if the bomb had not been used and a million more
allied lives were thus lost in an invasion with many millions more
Japanese lives lost too. For them, it was and is a no-win situation.
As an aside, I wonder why there is no similar hue and cry over the many
documented atrocities committed by the Japanese throughout their fetid
empire during the same period? This war was not started by America,
the war was brought to the USA by the Japanese and the Germans. The USA
eventually found the means to end it. How can the Japanese persist in
portraying themselves as victims?
--
yours,
Dick Spargur
Ranjit Mathews USG
Yes, indeed they tell the truth! (ha ha)
Now, I have a question for the general public:
When I was a young lad, Sikkim became part of India. I was quite sure that the
Indian news media were not reporting the story from the Sikkimese point of view.
On arriving in the US in the early eighties, I looked for articles on the
subject and came up with one book and one article.
The book was by an Indian author and toed the line of the articles I had read
earlier in Indian newspapers. The article was from a British, and presumably
disinterested, source and to my amazement, it said the same thing:
97 % of the Sikkimese voted to become an Indian state and, in the process, the
Chogyal (King) lost his position (and, incidentally, his wife).
Does anyone know why 97 % of the Sikkimese wanted to join the Indian Union ?
I've never heard of any other election or referendeum being won in India with
that kind of margin.
In article <4oi56e$v...@news.dialnet.net>, ima...@dialnet.net (Nomad9) writes:
|> No.
|> All governments tell the truth...ALL THE TIME!
|> Didn't you learn that in school?
|>
--
Angus Johnston
dwi...@ix.netcom.com(Dave Wilton) writes:
> ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston) writes:
>
> >Well, sort of. The US planned the bombings as a one-two punch, and
> >didn't really pursue the question of a surrender before Nagasaki.
>
> That is not really accurate. What is more accurate is that Japan did
> not accede to US conditions for surrender until after Nagasaki.
We're splitting hairs here. Yes, the US made a pro forma appeal to
Japan to surrender after Hiroshima, but the Americans didn't pause to
see whether the peace faction would carry the day before dropping the
Nagasaki bomb. We'll never know whether Hiroshima would have been
enough (or, more pertinently, Hiroshima plus the Soviet entry into the
war), and I haven't seen much evidence at all that Nagasaki,
specifically, was the decisive factor.
--
Angus Johnston
http://www.panix.com/~angusj
Angus Johnston
dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) writes:
> Angus Johnston (ang...@panix.com) wrote:
> : wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) writes:
> : >
> : > The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
> : > not taken.
>
> : Well, sort of. The US planned the bombings as a one-two punch, and
> : didn't really pursue the question of a surrender before Nagasaki. So
> : your response doesn't really answer Nigu's question.
>
> '...didn't really pursue the question of surrender before Nagasaki'?
> What kind of bunk is this? Have you not heard of the Potsdam
> Declaration, delivered to the Japanese a full two weeks before the
> Hiroshima bombing-- indeed more than a week before any of the bomb parts
> even arrived at Tinian?
Calm down, Steve. The issue, as I made clear in my original post, was
whether the US pursued surrender _between_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As
I've noted, they made a pro forma gesture, but didn't pause for long
enough to see whether the first bomb, combined with the Soviet entry
into the war, would bring surrender on their own.
LRVvsPCC
sugested reading "JAPANS SECRET WAR"
george e hale
Kathleen Mulhern
In article <4p2945$954...@patacake.uwaterloo.ca>,
RWP...@SCIENCE2.uwaterloo.ca (Rick Pikul) wrote:
> Perhaps say: Accepting the offer of surrender that had been given
>several months earlier, the only condition of which was somthing you did
>anyway?
The U.S. asked for an unconditional Japanese surrender. It was refused.
The U.S. bombed one city, and still no Japanese surrender, so they bombed
the other city. The Japanese hid behind thousands of innocent people and
refused to surrender. The thousands of innocent people were killed as a
result.
>>Use of the atomic bombs was ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO DO UNDER THE
>>CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OBTAINED AT THE TIME.
>
> Yes, the Russians needed to be scared.
The bombing had absolutely nothing to do with the Russians, and you know
it. The A-Bomb was developed for use on Germany. When Germany
surrendered unconditionally, the U.S. turned it's sites to Japan. The
thought behind the use of the A-Bomb on Japan was that the firebombings of
Tokyo, et al (which killed people in a far more horrific way) killed FAR
more people than either atomic bomb did, so it was not seen as
unnecessarily cruel. Of course, any unnatural death is a cruel death.
----
--kath...@teleport.com
"I have no respect for a man who can
only think of one way to spell a word."
-Andrew Jackson
Dave Wilton
In <4onoug$c...@news1.panix.com> ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston)
writes:
>
>Calm down, Steve. The issue, as I made clear in my original post, was
>whether the US pursued surrender _between_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As
>I've noted, they made a pro forma gesture, but didn't pause for long
>enough to see whether the first bomb, combined with the Soviet entry
>into the war, would bring surrender on their own.
A common misunderstanding is that the political authorities in
Washington ordered the dropping of each bomb. That is not the case. The
military commander on Tinian (possibly Tibbets, or perhaps his
superior, I'm not sure who the individual was) was given a target list
of four targets and told to bomb them as soon as was militarily
feasible. Any peace initiatives were not coordinated with the dropping
of the second bomb. You may criticize criticize Washington for not
ordering a delay, but the fact remains that the timing of the second
bomb was in the hands of the military commander on Tinian, not in
Washington.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Dave Wilton
>Calm down, Steve. The issue, as I made clear in my original post, was
>whether the US pursued surrender _between_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As
>I've noted, they made a pro forma gesture, but didn't pause for long
>enough to see whether the first bomb, combined with the Soviet entry
>into the war, would bring surrender on their own.
Should have waited on my last post until I looked it up, but here is my
source, _Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, 1945: Year of Decisions_
Begin quote
"General Spaatz, who commanded the Strategic Air Forces, which would
deliver the bomb on the target, was given some latitude as to when and
on which of the four targets the bomb would be dropped. That was
necessary because of weather and other operational considerations. In
order to get preparations under way, the War Department was given
orders to instruct General Spaatz that the first bomb would be dropped
as soon after August 3 as weather would permit. The order to General
Spaatz read as follows:
24 July 1945
To: General Carl Spaatz
Commanding General
United States Army Strategic Air Forces
1. The 509 Composite Group, 20th Air Force will deliver its first
special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about
3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and
Nagasaki. To carry military and civilian scientific personnel from the
War Department to observe and record the effects of the explosion of
the bomb, additional aircraft will accompany the airplane carrying the
bomb. The observing planes will stay several miles distant from the
point of impact of the bomb.
2. Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon
as made ready by the project staff. Further instructions will be issued
concerning targets other than those listed above.
3. Dissemination of any and all information concerning the use of
the weapon against Japan is reserved to the Secretary of War and the
President of the United States. No communique on the subject or release
of information will be issued by Commanders in the field without
specific prior authority. Any news stories will be sent to the War
Department for special clearance.
4. The foregoing directive is issued to you by direction and with
the approval of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Staff, U.S.A. It
is desired that you personally deliver one copy of this directive to
General MacArthur and one copy to Admiral Nimitz for their information.
/s/ Thos. T. Handy
General, GSC
Acting Chief of Staff"
end quote
I was slightly in error in implying that political authorities did not
influence the timing of the second bomb, although the decision was in
fact in the hands of Spaatz, his staff, and his subordinate commanders.
Truman states later on:
"Still no surrender offer came. An order was issued to General Spaatz
to continue operations as planned unless otherwise instructed."
In other words, political authorities told him he should continue
dropping bombs as fast as possible, considering weather and operational
constraints.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Angus Johnston
dwi...@ix.netcom.com(Dave Wilton) writes:
> ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston) writes:
> >
> >Calm down, Steve. The issue, as I made clear in my original post, was
> >whether the US pursued surrender _between_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As
> >I've noted, they made a pro forma gesture, but didn't pause for long
> >enough to see whether the first bomb, combined with the Soviet entry
> >into the war, would bring surrender on their own.
>
> A common misunderstanding is that the political authorities in
> Washington ordered the dropping of each bomb. That is not the case. The
> military commander on Tinian (possibly Tibbets, or perhaps his
> superior, I'm not sure who the individual was) was given a target list
> of four targets and told to bomb them as soon as was militarily
> feasible. Any peace initiatives were not coordinated with the dropping
> of the second bomb. You may criticize criticize Washington for not
> ordering a delay, but the fact remains that the timing of the second
> bomb was in the hands of the military commander on Tinian, not in
> Washington.
Uh, Dave? If you'd follow the thread of the discussion rather than
jumping on posts taken in isolation, you'd know that I was making
exactly the same point. I've been saying all along that the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were planned as a unit, and no provision was
made for a pause between the two to consider the prospect of a
surrender. You're _agreeing_ with me, friend.
Larry W. Jewell
In article <4oogh0$k...@news1.panix.com>,
Angus Johnston <ang...@panix.com> wrote:
:Uh, Dave? If you'd follow the thread of the discussion rather than
:jumping on posts taken in isolation, you'd know that I was making
:exactly the same point. I've been saying all along that the bombings of
:Hiroshima and Nagasaki were planned as a unit, and no provision was
:made for a pause between the two to consider the prospect of a
:surrender. You're _agreeing_ with me, friend.
He's agreeing with your statement but not your logic. A single radio message
would have stopped the second bombing. Jumping on the fact that this was
not explicitly deliniated in orders doesn't make it any less true, any more
than stating that since there wasn't any thing in the orders about giving
the planes enough fuel to return made it a "suicide mission". Struggle as
hard as you wish to make it a grand conspiracy, but when paranoia is removed
the remainder isn't that complex.
I have, over the years, watched a massively frustrated faction strive to
make the US the "bad guy" in this affair, to the point where trivial details
are blown out of proportion and magnified to dreadful consequence with the
essentially unimportant nature of these "facts" long forgotten.
I realize that your theory may be a central icon in your Weltanschauung, but
it's really a minor detail that was so obvious that it didn't need stating
to the people involved. Who knows, maybe they phrased it that was so that
you'd have a banner to wave.
BTW, a reproduction of the original orders to "Spaats", from Handy, can
be found on page 70 of the June, 1995 issue of "American Heritage" magazine.
Strangely enough the directive to hurry up and drop the bomb before the
Russians got involved is not included ;-).
Larry J
--
LWJE...@OMNI.CC.PURDUE.EDU; Pearl Harbor Working Group? E-mail me.
"Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly
unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life."
Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41
Richie
Chronology of end of WW 2 in the Pacific:
July 26: Potsdam Declaration issued.
July 26: Prime Minister Suzuki rejects Potsdam Declaration.
August 6: Hiroshima.
August 7: American officers meet on Luzon to prepare for first stage of
November 1 invasion of Japanese home islands.
August 8: USSR declares war against Japan and invades Manchuria-earlier
than expected out of fear that the Japanese would surrender
before Soviet entry into Pacific war.
August 9: Nagasaki-two days sooner than planned because of
forcasted bad weather over targets.
The Japanese Supreme War Direction Council was
meeting and deadlocked in discussions between peace and
surrender when news of Nagasaki arrived. The Minister of War
stated:
"It is far too early to say that the war is lost. That we
will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades
Japan is certain, and it is by no means impossible that we
may be able to reverse the situation in our favour, pulling
victory out of defeat. Furthermore, our Army will not
submit to demobilization. And since they know they are not
permitted to surrender, since they know that a fighting man
who surrrenders is liable to extremely heavy punishment,
there is really no alternative for us but to continue the
war."
August 10: Very early morning Hirohito after listening to the various
factions argue for two hours intercedes and states that:
"Continuing the war can only result in the annihilation of
the Japanese people and a prolongation of the suffering of
all humanity. It seems obvious that the nation is no
longer able to wage war, and its ability to defend its own
shores is doubtful. The time has come to bear the
unbearable."
Early afternoon Tokyo transmitted to their Swedish and Swis
ambassadors for transmission to the Allies that:
"The Japanese government are ready to accept the terms
enumerated in the Joint Declaration which was issued at
Potsdam on 26 July...with the understanding that the said
Declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices
the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler."
Early morning - lets not forget the differences in date and
time between Washington and Tokyo - Truman met and diplomatic
exchanges began between the warring countries. Truman issues
order suspending atomic bombs being used against Japan.
August 14: During the morning 800 bombers strike military targets on
Honshu.
During the afternoon the Japanese news agency issued a radio
bulletin that the Potsdam proclamation was to be accepted.
August 15: Midday the Emperor speaks to the people of Japan and states:
"The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb,
the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable,
taking the toll of many innocent lives. ...we have ordered
our Government...our Empire accepts the provisions of their
Joint Declaration..."
August 22: Stalin cancels the amphibious and airborne invasion of
Hokkaido island scheduled to begin the following day.
August 25: Soviets complete occupation of Southern Sakhalin island.
Sept. 1: Soviets complete occupation of Kurile islands.
Sept. 2: Formal surrender in Tokyo bay on the USS Missouri.
Sept. 9: Japanese forces in Korea surrender.
Oct. 21: Japanese forces on Sumatra surrender.
Nov. 30: Japanese forces in Indo-China surrender.
Richie
Angus Johnston
lwje...@omni.cc.purdue.edu (Larry W. Jewell) writes:
> Angus Johnston <ang...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> :Uh, Dave? If you'd follow the thread of the discussion rather than
> :jumping on posts taken in isolation, you'd know that I was making
> :exactly the same point. I've been saying all along that the bombings of
> :Hiroshima and Nagasaki were planned as a unit, and no provision was
> :made for a pause between the two to consider the prospect of a
> :surrender. You're _agreeing_ with me, friend.
>
> He's agreeing with your statement but not your logic. A single radio message
> would have stopped the second bombing. Jumping on the fact that this was
> not explicitly deliniated in orders doesn't make it any less true, any more
> than stating that since there wasn't any thing in the orders about giving
> the planes enough fuel to return made it a "suicide mission". Struggle as
> hard as you wish to make it a grand conspiracy, but when paranoia is removed
> the remainder isn't that complex...
>
> I realize that your theory may be a central icon in your Weltanschauung, but
> it's really a minor detail that was so obvious that it didn't need stating
> to the people involved. Who knows, maybe they phrased it that was so that
> you'd have a banner to wave.
You have virtually no idea what my logic, my struggle, my theory, my
icons, my Weltanschauung, or my banner may be. As a result, your
struggle, your theory, your icons, your Weltanschauung, and your banner
seem to be clouding your logic. Either that, or you're confusing me
with someone else.
You guessed wrong on my motives, and you're fighting a straw man as a
result. But thanks for reminding me so graphically about why I stopped
reading the net history groups---you guys use the past as rather too
blunt a cudgel for my taste.
BritcomHMP
I am shure the shades of the Allied POWs will be facinated by much of this
anal examination of American motives and action in droping the bomb. Those
being tortured to death, those on the Battan death march and all those
'inferior races' subjugated to the perverted actions of so called honour.
I recall in 50s England when foul language was not a prevelent as it is
today, an insult was to call someone a 'Jerry' or 'Kraut' but a worse one
was to call someone a 'Jap'.
What did they do to earn this? Well we had first hand stories from family
and friends. Those that were in the camps had one regret, that Japan wasnt
bombed off the face of the earth.
It is not that we don't recognise that not all Japanise agreed with what
was going on, or that there was no oposition to what was going on, IT'S
THAT IT DID HAPPEN and even today there are Japanese who want to feel hard
done to by the Allies while forgeting what they did, I dont say we have to
trumpet dropping the bomb from the rooftops but good lord we dont need to
apologise for it.
You may recall that when Lord Moutbatten, who was some time Commander in
the area and much afected by the sufferings of his soldiers, accepted any
Japanese surrender he demanded the officer hand over ALL his family
swords. After his murder by the IRA it was found that he had left a
provision in his will that there was to be NO Japanese representation at
his State Funeral. Forgive yes but NEVER forget.
Larry W. Jewell
In article <4opj0j$3...@news1.panix.com>,
Angus Johnston <ang...@panix.com> wrote:
>You have virtually no idea what my logic, my struggle, my theory, my
>icons, my Weltanschauung, or my banner may be.
I, rather, think you are all too transparent. This nonsense isn't new
with you, the fool Alperovitz enshrined it in the Hall of Silliness decades
ago.
>You guessed wrong on my motives, and you're fighting a straw man as a
>result. But thanks for reminding me so graphically about why I stopped
>reading the net history groups---you guys use the past as rather too
>blunt a cudgel for my taste.
My!, may I add that to my sig collection? Do feel free to flee the field.
Dave Wilton
In <4oogh0$k...@news1.panix.com> ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston)
writes:
>Uh, Dave? If you'd follow the thread of the discussion rather than
>jumping on posts taken in isolation, you'd know that I was making
>exactly the same point. I've been saying all along that the bombings
>of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were planned as a unit, and no provision was
>made for a pause between the two to consider the prospect of a
>surrender. You're _agreeing_ with me, friend.
Yes, I am agreeing with you. What I said is that a "common
misunderstanding" about how the bombings were planned exists. As
demonstrated by this thread, people generally think that the political
authorities in Washington ordered each bombing; when they did not get
the proper response after Hiroshima, they dropped the second one.
That, as you well know, is not the case. Spaatz was ordered to drop the
bombs as fast as weather, operation conditions, and availability of
bombs allowed. (The political authorities, did however, tell Spaatz to
continue bombings as planned after the Hiroshima mission, but this
message was intended to clarify that his original orders still stood
and was not necessary for the bombings to continue.)
This fact partially debunks the idea that the second bomb was dropped
either out of spite or to impress the Soviets.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Angus Johnston
lwje...@omni.cc.purdue.edu (Larry W. Jewell) writes:
> Angus Johnston <ang...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >You have virtually no idea what my logic, my struggle, my theory, my
> >icons, my Weltanschauung, or my banner may be.
>
> I, rather, think you are all too transparent. This nonsense isn't new
> with you, the fool Alperovitz enshrined it in the Hall of Silliness decades
> ago.
You haven't, of course, bothered to contradict my statement of the
facts---it's just the (presumed) underlying logic of my posts that's
gotten you in a tizzy. Neither have you bothered to state what you
presume that logic to be. Your silences speak volumes.
> >You guessed wrong on my motives, and you're fighting a straw man as a
> >result. But thanks for reminding me so graphically about why I stopped
> >reading the net history groups---you guys use the past as rather too
> >blunt a cudgel for my taste.
>
> My!, may I add that to my sig collection? Do feel free to flee the field.
I'm not fleeing anything---you'll note that this particular
back-and-forth was crossposted all over the place. It wound up in
alt.folklore.urban, where I'm reading it, and where somewhat higher
standards of scholarship and argumentation generally apply.
Larry W. Jewell
In article <4ops4c$5...@news1.panix.com>,
Angus Johnston <ang...@panix.com> wrote:
>You haven't, of course, bothered to contradict my statement of the
>facts
Actually, I'm still waiting for a fact from you. The statement you made
that I responded to was falacious, a _fact_ I pointed out.
>Your silences speak volumes.
You might read the response I posted to your article, or have someone
read it to you and explain the hard parts.
>I'm not fleeing anything---you'll note that this particular
>back-and-forth was crossposted all over the place. It wound up in
>alt.folklore.urban, where I'm reading it, and where somewhat higher
>standards of scholarship and argumentation generally apply.
Yours being the exception? BTW, where do you think I'm reading this and
why do you think that group (given your assumption that its not folklore
_and_ that folklore has a higher standard than some unknown group) has
inferior standards? _Your_ strawmen sound like something from Frank L.
Baum.
But, just for the sake of clarity, do you really think that there was
no mechanism to stop the bombings just because it wasn't included in
a particular message? A good cryptologist can explain the dangers of
being overly verbose in communiques. Or do you think that there was
no intention of stopping the bombings, no matter what the Japanese did?
If you take either of those positions I'll have you for lunch. If you
take another you'll have to jump through hoops to explain your previous
postings on this topic, unless you write them off as babble.
Angus Johnston
Larry Jewell seems to have taken me on as a project---he's getting a
little Byzantine, so a recap seems in order.
A few days back, I wrote that "The US planned the [Hiroshima and
Nagasaki] bombings as a one-two punch, and didn't really pursue the
question of a surrender before Nagasaki." In a subsequent post, I noted
that "the US made a pro forma appeal to Japan to surrender after
Hiroshima [but] didn't pause to see whether the peace faction would
carry the day before dropping the Nagasaki bomb."
All I am arguing here is that the US could have dropped a bomb on
Hiroshima, waited for the dust to clear, made an effort to determine
whether a surrender was forthcoming, and then make a decision about
whether a second bombing would serve any useful purpose. They didn't.
Instead, they decided to drop the Hiroshima bomb, drop the Nagasaki
bomb, and then, having depleted their nuclear arsenal, see what effect
the combined force of the two (and, of course, the Soviet entry into
the war) had on the Japanese will to fight.
Note that I make no claims as to _why_ this latter course of action was
taken, nor do I argue that another strategy would have been morally,
diplomatically, or militarily superior. Neither do I claim that the
Nagasaki bombing was inevitable--the Japanese _could_ have surrendered
immediately after Hiroshima. Given the American strategy, however, they
had just three days in which to do so, and no deadline to work against.
In response to these pretty basic points, Larry claimed that I was
engaged in a "struggle" to create "a grand conspiracy," that I was
gripped by "paranoia," that my statements reflect those of "massively
frustrated faction" seeking to "make the US the 'bad guy,'" and so on.
In his most recent post, he claimed that my original argument was
"falacious" (sic), and that he had pointed this out. He has, in fact,
taken direct issue with none of what I've said, and his attempts at
teasing out my deeper agenda fail miserably. He asks...
> just for the sake of clarity, do you really think that there was
> no mechanism to stop the bombings just because it wasn't included in
> a particular message?
Not only don't I think it, but I never said it, never implied it, and
can't imagine where you got it.
> Or do you think that there was
> no intention of stopping the bombings, no matter what the Japanese did?
Even sillier than the first. Again, nothing in my posts supports such a
reading.
I think we're done here. Followups set out of alt.folklore.urban, where
I'm reading this thread---as much as I'm enjoying our little chat, it's
grown quite absurdly off-charter for this group.
Larry, if you post a reply, I won't see it---you've got the last word.
If you want to continue the discussion, do so by email.
Larry Bump
>The above exerpts apparently likes to rely on the simple adage "History is written
>by the victors." This may be true to a small extent, but keep in mind that History
>is NOT written by governments, except those of a totalitarian bent (Nazi Germany,
>USSR, PRC, etc.), who require a strong propaganda apparat to keep their populace
>ignorant of how badly they're being screwed.
The question is which version is accepted by the govt.
monopoly schools. The textbooks that are acceptable
to them are usually all that are available to school-age
children, and sadly the adult population can't generally
be bothered to research obscure academic texts.
So no, history isn't only written by the victors.
BUT, history classes and texts are dictated by the victors
(or survivors, when unoccupied).
Akira Ijuin
Note the header.
Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
> Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam
> Declaration in late July 1945, three days after it had been
> received.
I'm a bit disappointed with this comment. No, the Declaration was not
rejected by the Japanese government. The term that was used was
"mokusatsu", which was translated as something like "reject", but was
meant more like "ignore" or "no comment".
> It was only with the Emperor's intercession after the second bombing
> that the Japanese government agreed to capitulate and the surrender
> announcement was made on 15 Aug 1945, a week after the Nagasaki bombing.
Konoe and Yoshida worked to force a surrender long before all this.
The Hiroshima bombing attracted significant attention, but a meeting
to discuss the surrender wasn't held till after the Nagasaki bombing.
And even after Hirohito's decision to surrender, some in the Army
resisted, resulting in the failed coup attempt on the night of 8/14.
--
Akira Ijuin, ij...@uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Steve Sundberg
Akira Ijuin (ij...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Note the header.
: Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
: > Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam
: > Declaration in late July 1945, three days after it had been
: > received.
: I'm a bit disappointed with this comment. No, the Declaration was not
: rejected by the Japanese government. The term that was used was
: "mokusatsu", which was translated as something like "reject", but was
: meant more like "ignore" or "no comment".
Akira, please don't pull a 'Gary'. The Japanese certainly did not accept
the Declaration and they did not notify the Allies that they would
consider the Declaration's content. The government broadcast it's
intention to (yes) ignore the terms and to continue fighting the war (in
Suzuki's words) 'to a successful conclusion.' Taken together, these
actions add up to a rejection of the Declaration, a rejection of
surrender and a rejection of peace. Split hairs all you want over
semantics. The fact remains that the Japanese government rejected in
toto the Allied offer to end the war in July.
: > It was only with the Emperor's intercession after the second bombing
: > that the Japanese government agreed to capitulate and the surrender
: > announcement was made on 15 Aug 1945, a week after the Nagasaki bombing.
: Konoe and Yoshida worked to force a surrender long before all this.
: The Hiroshima bombing attracted significant attention, but a meeting
: to discuss the surrender wasn't held till after the Nagasaki bombing.
: And even after Hirohito's decision to surrender, some in the Army
: resisted, resulting in the failed coup attempt on the night of 8/14.
Your portrayal does not conflict with my statement-- that the Emperor used
his power and influence (finally) to break the deadlock in the War
Cabinet; that this occurred after the Nagasaki bombing; and that the
surrender announcement was made on 15 Aug.
--
\|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
"@'/ ,. \`@" | dee...@mm.com
/_| \__/ |_\ | 7361...@compuserv.com
\__U_/ | steve.s...@tclbbs.com
Charles M.Richmond
Akira Ijuin wrote:
>
> Note the header.
>
> Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
>
> > Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam
> > Declaration in late July 1945, three days after it had been
> > received.
>
> I'm a bit disappointed with this comment. No, the Declaration was not
> rejected by the Japanese government. The term that was used was
> "mokusatsu", which was translated as something like "reject", but was
> meant more like "ignore" or "no comment".
>
It was not only the use of 黙殺 (mokusatsu) with its meaning of "silent
contempt" (Shogakukan Progressive J->E) but also that the cabinet chose
to edit out "We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a
race or destroyed as a nation" from the censored version that was released
to the Japanese press. This key editing was interpreted as intending to
justify the rejection of Potsdam to the Japanese people.
It is unfortunate that the same mentality of putting party , power,
and friends before country and people has led to so many ill choices.
Modern examples are the failure to use HIV-free blood inorder to protect
Japanese firm's sales, failure resolve the lingering issues of WWII
such as comfort women and failure to followup on the early uses of
sarin gas by Oumushinrikyo one year before the Tokyo Subway gassing.
I know from past posts that Akira does not hold too much respect for
these politicians and that his feeling is common. The politicians
have to be watched , because they will again put the Japanese people
in an untenable position.
Vote! If you can't vote, agitate! And if the candidates are wrong, run!
Charlie
PS It is my understanding that nonresident Japanese citizens are not
permitted to vote in Japanese elections.
--
*************************************************************************
* Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation *
* c...@iisc.com c...@koibito.iisc.com c...@shore.net *
* UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W *
* One Longfellow Place Suite 3309 , Boston , Ma. USA 02114-2431 *
* (617) 723 7695 (617) 367 3151 FAX (617) 723 6861 *
*************************************************************************
Akira Ijuin
Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
> : Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
> : > Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam
> : > Declaration in late July 1945, three days after it had been
> : > received.
> : I'm a bit disappointed with this comment. No, the Declaration was not
> : rejected by the Japanese government. The term that was used was
> : "mokusatsu", which was translated as something like "reject", but was
> : meant more like "ignore" or "no comment".
> Akira, please don't pull a 'Gary'. The Japanese certainly did not
> accept the Declaration and they did not notify the Allies that they
> would consider the Declaration's content. The government broadcast
> it's intention to (yes) ignore the terms and to continue fighting
> the war (in Suzuki's words) 'to a successful conclusion.' Taken
> together, these actions add up to a rejection of the Declaration, a
> rejection of surrender and a rejection of peace. Split hairs all you
> want over semantics. The fact remains that the Japanese government
> rejected in toto the Allied offer to end the war in July.
If one can't tell the difference between ignore and reject, that's
certainly fine with me.
Oh, and BTW, claim that the war would be carried out to a successful
end was made at the end of EVERY comment those people made. These
comments were being made while the government was looking to close a
peace settlement via USSR, so all you're doing is taking it out of
context.
> : > It was only with the Emperor's intercession after the second bombing
> : > that the Japanese government agreed to capitulate and the surrender
> : > announcement was made on 15 Aug 1945, a week after the Nagasaki bombing.
> : Konoe and Yoshida worked to force a surrender long before all this.
> : The Hiroshima bombing attracted significant attention, but a meeting
> : to discuss the surrender wasn't held till after the Nagasaki bombing.
> : And even after Hirohito's decision to surrender, some in the Army
> : resisted, resulting in the failed coup attempt on the night of 8/14.
> Your portrayal does not conflict with my statement-- that the
> Emperor used his power and influence (finally) to break the deadlock
> in the War Cabinet; that this occurred after the Nagasaki bombing;
> and that the surrender announcement was made on 15 Aug.
I was pointing out that Hirohito was trying to pull his men together
before the Nagasaki bombing, and others were trying to end the war
even prior to that. It seems I was being too subtle.
James A. Wolf
thi...@ix.netcom.com (Soo Lee) wrote:
>Bingo. Why this talk about bombing N. Korea? The chances are, it
>will implode, given internal economic situation.
Or explode all over the peninsula, if Pyongang acts irrationally (and
there is no reason to assume that they should bahave sanely).
James A. Wolf - jw...@cybercom.net
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in
Samson's time.--"Richard Nixon
<*>**********[Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer, but Dorothy Rabinowitz didn't.]***********
"I believe in-- and am proud to belong to-- the United States. Despite shortcomings
from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation has the most decent and kindly
internal practices and foriegn policies to be found anywhere in history."-- Robert Heinlein
Gary Mathews
In a previous article, dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) says:
>Akira Ijuin (ij...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: Note the header.
>
>: Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
>
>: > Entirely false. The Japanese government rejected the Potsdam
>: > Declaration in late July 1945, three days after it had been
>: > received.
>
>: I'm a bit disappointed with this comment. No, the Declaration was not
>: rejected by the Japanese government. The term that was used was
>: "mokusatsu", which was translated as something like "reject", but was
>: meant more like "ignore" or "no comment".
>
>Akira, please don't pull a 'Gary'.
Pulled what? Those definitions are often mentioned in history books.
Such as "Japan's Longest Day," or Toland's "Rising Sun," among others.
Perfectly reasonable assessment by Akira.
>The Japanese certainly did not accept
>the Declaration and they did not notify the Allies that they would
>consider the Declaration's content. The government broadcast it's
>intention to (yes) ignore the terms and to continue fighting the war (in
>Suzuki's words) 'to a successful conclusion.'
>Taken together, these actions add up to a rejection of the Declaration, a rejection of
>surrender and a rejection of peace. Split hairs all you want over
>semantics. The fact remains that the Japanese government rejected in
>toto the Allied offer to end the war in July.
By your narrowly based interpretation yes.
Through more full examination, your story don't add.
In his memoirs, former Secretary of State, Byrnes wrote:
"The days later(July 29 after Suzuki's speech) Secretary
Forrestal arrived and told me in detail of the intercepted
messages from the Japanese government to Ambassador
Sato in Moscow, indicating Japan's willingness to surrender."
[James B. Brynes', "All in One's Life Time."]
Even Bruce Lee denies Tokyo was ignoring the Proclamation.
"The Magic summery of July demonstrates(SRS 1743, 29 July 1945)
that Tokyo is not ignoring the Potsdam Declaration, but is trying
to figure out how to use it to its advantage."
[Bruce Lee's, "Marching Orders."]
Edward Rice
In article <4omn77$ag_...@firstclass.unb.ca>,
l...@firstclass.unb.ca (Les) wrote:
> The Nagasaki-type of bomb had already been tested
> at Trinity...
>
> The US started out with two Plutonium bombs and one uranium bomb.
> The tested the first Plutonium bomb at Trinity (the Uranium bomb
> was simpler in design, and believed to have a far better chance
> of working than the Plutonium bomb). After they tested one bomb,
> they used the other two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The next
> A-bomb wouldn't be ready for another three weeks...
The Trinity explosion was not of an actual bomb design, but rather a device
that could never have been dropped from any existing airplane (nor from any
bomber that exists today, either). Big, heavy, wrong-shaped mutha.
Leif Roar Moldskred
There is an interesting article on this subject at
http://www.he.net/~douglong/index.html
I can't say much about the accuracy of the article myself, but it is
well worth a read.
Leif R. Moldskred
F Andrew McMichael
Angus Johnston (ang...@panix.com) wrote:
: We're splitting hairs here. Yes, the US made a pro forma appeal to
: Japan to surrender after Hiroshima, but the Americans didn't pause to
: see whether the peace faction would carry the day before dropping the
: Nagasaki bomb.
Not the US gov't, but the on-site commander. The on-site commander on'
Tinian had orders to drop two bombs three days apart. Nobody
ever told him to pause after the first, so he went
ahead with his orders. This is covered in the bio _Truman_.
F Andrew McMichael
Angus Johnston (ang...@panix.com) wrote:
: All I am arguing here is that the US could have dropped a bomb on
: Hiroshima, waited for the dust to clear, made an effort to determine
: whether a surrender was forthcoming, and then make a decision about
: whether a second bombing would serve any useful purpose. They didn't.
: Instead, they decided to drop the Hiroshima bomb, drop the Nagasaki
: bomb, and then, having depleted their nuclear arsenal, see what effect
: the combined force of the two (and, of course, the Soviet entry into
: the war) had on the Japanese will to fight.
I think this is where the misunderstanding may lay. It seems from your
statement here [and I think you've corrected this, so bear with me]
that you are arguinig that the US made two separate decisions to
drop the bomb, when in fact it was one decision which caused both
bombs to be dropped. The US *government* may have wanted to pause
in between bombings, but by AUg. 3rd the orders were coming
from the on-site commander, Gen. Spaatz. I think your wording may be
off.
Sydney
In article <4os966$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, ij...@students.uiuc.edu (Akira
Ijuin) wrote:
> If one can't tell the difference between ignore and reject, that's
> certainly fine with me.
Who cares if they ignored or rejected it? The point is, they did not
accept the Declaration period.
A more startling point to take note of is the fact that you Jappies can't
seem to differentiate between "invasion" and "liberation". The Japs refuse
to revise their textbooks and still maintain that they were in SEA as
"liberators".
Angus Johnston
Andrew, I'm not sure what in this post led you to the conclusion you've
reached. The statement that the US "decided to drop the Hiroshima bomb,
drop the Nagasaki bomb, and then..." doesn't imply two separate
decisions---it implies two separate _bombings_. The alternate strategy
to which I allude would have required different instructions to the
on-site commander, of course (although that's the most trivial of the
shifts in policy that would have been necessary).
At any rate, your analysis of my position would benefit from closer
reading---the posts in which I explicitly note that the bombings
stemmed from a single order were written _before_ this one, not after.
The former were thus not a correction of the latter.
--
Angus "I'd been wondering where you went" Johnston
http://www.panix.com/~angusj
Walter Eric Johnson
Sydney (ga...@sydney.2000) wrote:
: In article <4os966$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, ij...@students.uiuc.edu (Akira
: Ijuin) wrote:
:
: > If one can't tell the difference between ignore and reject, that's
: > certainly fine with me.
:
: Who cares if they ignored or rejected it? The point is, they did not
: accept the Declaration period.
Maybe he thinks we should have withdrawn for a year or two to let
them make up their mind about whether or not to surrender.
Eric Johnson
Akira Ijuin
Or maybe you don't know since I never mentioned or suggested what the
Allies should've done.
F Andrew McMichael
Angus Johnston (ang...@panix.com) wrote:
: Andrew, I'm not sure what in this post led you to the conclusion you've
: reached. The statement that the US "decided to drop the Hiroshima bomb,
: drop the Nagasaki bomb, and then..." doesn't imply two separate
: decisions---it implies two separate _bombings_. The alternate strategy
: to which I allude would have required different instructions to the
: on-site commander, of course (although that's the most trivial of the
: shifts in policy that would have been necessary).
Back off, cowboy. I'm saying that I believe that people have
misinterpreted your post in the manner that you accuse me of,
not that I have done so. I'm trying to help clear things up. I
understood what you meant after you clarified it earlier.
Wilson R
In article <4of11t$i...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, ken...@singnet.com.sg (Ken) writes:
|>
|> hey! i was taught the bombing of nagasaki (however tragic it was)
|> brought about the END of the war. and from what i see around
|> singapore, that has not changed. where did you get your information
|> from? japan?
|>
What they taught you was a pack of lies.
There are other ways to end wars without bombing thousands of innocent people.
Matthew Rabuzzi
Larry W. Jewell <lwje...@omni.cc.purdue.edu> writes:
: _Your_ strawmen sound like something from Frank L. Baum.
You mean the guy who wrote _The Wizard of O_?
How _his_ Straw Man (cryptic reference to S & M, note) was forced to suck ...
those graphic lubrication scenes between Dorothy and the Tin Man ...
somewhere, over the rainbow, guys are black and blue ...
and of course the inspiration for today's Toto in Chains ...
what a Meisterstuck of erotica!
ObTrueFact: In the real author of Oz's name, Elf Rank Bomb, the "L" stands
for Lyman. I bet he would know what flavor a Sprite or 7-Up is.
Matthew "maybe you meant _Frankelbaum_, by Mary Shelley?" Rabuzzi
Wilson R
In article <4ogtni$7...@news.tamu.edu>, wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) writes:
|> nigu (elm...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
|>
|> : The point is why did they drop the second mass
|> : destructive weapon, when Hiroshima was already wiped
|> : out? In the first place, why was it decided that they
|> : must nuke two places? Did they simply want to
|> : test two versions of the atomic bomb? 2 diff
|> : bomb for 2 diff place. So die die also must drop.
|>
|> The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
|> not taken.
Why couldn't the US just surrender instead?
Why is the US such a megalomaniac?
The simplest and best way to end a war is for both parties to call it off.
|>
|> : I think if the US go to war now with N.Korea, we
|> : can see them dropping thousands of bombs before
|> : N.Korea's surrender is heard. At least it'll be
|> : officially recorded as that. And that is what our
|> : decendents will learn from their history books.
|>
|> Huh? What does this have to do with the Japanese
|> surrender?
|>
habib delgado
On Thu, 30 May 96 12:44:53 GMT, l...@firstclass.unb.ca (Les) wrote:
>In article <4ois2s$a...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, dwi...@ix.netcom.com(Dave Wilton) wrote:
Jesus fuckin Christ--thanks for including the entire text! I think you
spend a little too much time alone...
--Living without Valium is like living underwater--
Joseph Tynan
In article <ADD7F2A59...@ehrice.his.com> ehr...@his.com (Edward Rice) writes:
>From: ehr...@his.com (Edward Rice)
>Subject: Re: Lying about atomic bombing and Japanese surrender
>Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 01:38:45 -0400
actually, by the time the bombs were dropped, teh US already had 7 bombs. two
at home, two to drop, the trinity, and two other flying around as backup. One
plane had problems, and ditched it in the ocean, so that left six. one was
detonated earlier, that makes five. two were dropped, that left three. by
the end of WWII, the us had three nuclear weapons. BTW< if Japan hadn't
surrendered when they did, we were scheduled to drop another one in about a
week.
Joseph Tynan
ark...@indirect.com
Steve Sundberg
Wilson R (wil...@essex.ac.uk) wrote:
: There are other ways to end wars without bombing thousands of innocent people.
Starvation? Saturation bombing (the firebombing of Tokyo on 10 Mar 45
killed more people than did either atomic bombing)? Direct invasion that
would put in peril not only 3.5 million Japanese troops but also millions
of civilians trained to defend the Home Islands?
Maybe the Allies should have just declared victory and hoped the Japanese
troops in Manchuria, China and SE Asia would go home... eventually?
When a war is maintained and prosecuted by a national government, there
is no such thing as an innocent civilian. Could Britain have survived
without the direct involvement of its* civilians in the war effort?
Jim Maurer
Wilson R wrote:
>
> In article <4ogtni$7...@news.tamu.edu>, wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) writes:
> |> nigu (elm...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
> |>
> |> : The point is why did they drop the second mass
> |> : destructive weapon, when Hiroshima was already wiped
> |> : out? In the first place, why was it decided that they
> |> : must nuke two places? Did they simply want to
> |> : test two versions of the atomic bomb? 2 diff
> |> : bomb for 2 diff place. So die die also must drop.
> |>
> |> The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
> |> not taken.
>
> Why couldn't the US just surrender instead?
> Why is the US such a megalomaniac?
>
> The simplest and best way to end a war is for both parties to call it off.
Yeah, I think a good name for that would be "Chamberlin Method". If only the UK had
just surrendered to Hitler, right? Too bad Churchill decided to resist, otherwise we'd
probably be having this thread auf Deutsch! (In case anyone can't tell, read this
paragraph with irony and sarcasm modes set to full on!)
Mike Richards
Joe Pritchard wrote:
>
> ig...@cleveland.freenet.edu (Donald M. Weaver) wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure about whether the U.S. bombed Nagasaki before or after
> >Japanese surrender. However, I too have heard that Japanese children
> >aren't taught the grim realities of WWII. Japanese history tends to
> >portray the Allies as the aggressors but to my understanding there has
> >been some effort on the Japanese part to rectify this discrepancy.
>
> And there's also the possibility that the Nagasaki drop was an
> opportunity to test the second bomb design. Also, a second drop
> helped convince the Russians (who were now getting in on the act) that
> the US had not just 1 nuclear device. In fact, I think they had three
> (includig the two dropped) at thie time but the 'sabre rattling'
> warning to the Soviet Union was probably equally high in teh minds of
> US policy makers as was a final finishing off of the Pacific war.
Joe,
The Nagasaki bomb had already been tested - it was a clone of the bomb
exploded in the Trinity test at Alamagordo New Mexico. The uranium-gun
bomb was almost certain to work so it was used on Hiroshima
Before a military version of the plutonium bomb was used it had to be
tested in a place where there was no chance of the enemy finding out if
the design was faulty.
Mike.
--
Mike Richards,
The Open University.
Tel +44 (01908) 654023
http://cszx.open.ac.uk/~mike/
Richie
Steve Sundberg wrote:
>
> Wilson R (wil...@essex.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> Maybe the Allies should have just declared victory and hoped the Japanese
> troops in Manchuria, China and SE Asia would go home... eventually?
> What the U.S. should have done in August of 1945 was to allow the
Soviet Union to occupy Japan-Stalin cancelled the amphibious and
airborne assault against Hokkaido on August 22, the day before it was to
begin. We would now be discussing how the U.S. was so wrong for not
dropping the atomic bomb on Japan and allowing Stalin to control Japan.
Richie
Steve Sundberg
Richie (ric...@warwick.net) wrote:
: Steve Sundberg wrote:
: > Maybe the Allies should have just declared victory and hoped the Japanese
: > troops in Manchuria, China and SE Asia would go home... eventually?
: > What the U.S. should have done in August of 1945 was to allow the
: Soviet Union to occupy Japan-Stalin cancelled the amphibious and
: airborne assault against Hokkaido on August 22, the day before it was to
: begin. We would now be discussing how the U.S. was so wrong for not
: dropping the atomic bomb on Japan and allowing Stalin to control Japan.
What(!) amphibious landing? The Soviets had neither the manpower nor the
technology in place to mount such a venture on 22 Aug. The Soviets were
still fighting the Kwangtung army in Manchuria on that date. If you had
written 'paratroop landing' I might believe you.
space for rent
Have you ever heard of Dresden, Germany. 39,773 victims is the official
total of the fire bombing. The real total was 200,000 higher. They counted
only those who could be identified. The city was packed with refugees
fleeing from the Russians who were raping and murdering as they went.
Most who were killed were women, children, men over 55, and hospitalized
soldiers. Germany had lost the war and these deaths did not shorten
the war. The fires were so intense that 100 mile per hour winds were
whipped up and the heat could be felt for miles. All the water mains
were destroyed before the firebombing began. The 20 largest cities
were handled the same way with 600,000 dead. This is higher than
Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
On 3 Jun 1996, Wilson R wrote:
> In article <4of11t$i...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, ken...@singnet.com.sg (Ken) writes:
> |>
> |> hey! i was taught the bombing of nagasaki (however tragic it was)
> |> brought about the END of the war. and from what i see around
> |> singapore, that has not changed. where did you get your information
> |> from? japan?
> |>
>
> What they taught you was a pack of lies.
>
Akira Ijuin
Steve Sundberg (dee...@mm.com) wrote:
> The government broadcast it's intention to (yes) ignore the terms
> and to continue fighting the war (in Suzuki's words) 'to a
> successful conclusion.'
I looked up what Suzuki actually said, and guess what, he never
mentions anything about a successful end to the war. He just says
"ware ware wa sensou kansui ni maishin suru nomi de aru"
F Andrew McMichael
Akira Ijuin (ij...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: I looked up what Suzuki actually said, and guess what, he never
: mentions anything about a successful end to the war. He just says
: "ware ware wa sensou kansui ni maishin suru nomi de aru"
For those of us without our Babel fish this morning, could you
give us [your] trasnlation of what that means.
Andrew "thought it was rot-13'ed" McMichael
Gary Clark
In <4ov66j$2...@seralph9.essex.ac.uk> wil...@essex.ac.uk (Wilson R)
writes:
>In article <4of11t$i...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, ken...@singnet.com.sg
(Ken) writes:
>|>
>|> hey! i was taught the bombing of nagasaki (however tragic it was)
>|> brought about the END of the war. and from what i see around
>|> singapore, that has not changed. where did you get your information
>|> from? japan?
>|>
>
>What they taught you was a pack of lies.
>
>There are other ways to end wars without bombing thousands of innocent
>people.
Oh really?
In that case, name just one that would have worked in an atmosphere in
which:
a. The Japanese military wanted to fight on until every last Japanese
person had died for the "glory" of Japan (this is FACT that can be
verified)
b. The American public hated the Japanese far more than the Nazis, and
would settle for nothing less than the national equivalent of Japan
getting down on its knees and begging for peace.
Furthermore, NONE OF THE PEOPLE BOMBED WERE INNOCENT!!!
They were the ENEMY, and therefore NOT INNOCENT (even if they were
infants). That's the way we did it to the Germans, and nobody seems to
bitch about that. The ONLY DIFFERENCE is the method used to incenerate
people, not the fact that they were incenerated.
Use of the atomic bombs was ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO DO UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OBTAINED AT THE TIME.
Gary Clark
--
===================== GARY CLARK - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA USA ==================
Feminizm and Nazism were both created by a small band of malcontents who
told lie-after-lie to create the myth that one group of people was being
victimized by another. "Gentiles are the victims of Jews" was the Nazi lie. |
"Women are the victims of men" is the lie of the feminizt.
==================== E-MAIL ADDRESS: wtw...@ix.netcom.com ================
Brennan Mr. Wacko Underwood
In article <4ov6t5$2...@seralph9.essex.ac.uk>,
Wilson R <wil...@essex.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <4ogtni$7...@news.tamu.edu>, wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) writes:
>|> The Japanese were given the chance to surrender -- it was
>|> not taken.
>
>Why couldn't the US just surrender instead?
>Why is the US such a megalomaniac?
Don't make us go over there and kick your ass again, Wilson.
O- [X]
--
bre...@rt66.com | Most people grossly overestimate their importance in
| the universe. Take yourself, for example.
Tin_...@news.kincyb.com
: >
: > Maybe the Allies should have just declared victory and hoped the Japanese
: > troops in Manchuria, China and SE Asia would go home... eventually?
: > What the U.S. should have done in August of 1945 was to allow the
: Soviet Union to occupy Japan-Stalin cancelled the amphibious and
: airborne assault against Hokkaido on August 22, the day before it was to
: begin. We would now be discussing how the U.S. was so wrong for not
: dropping the atomic bomb on Japan and allowing Stalin to control Japan.
: Richie
I've never heard about this before. Could you supply a source?