Author Topic: Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings  (Read 5796 times)

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #195 on: July 13, 2007, 06:17:12 PM »
Hi Charon,

Re: "I would like to see a source on that. Where a formal offer was made by someone with the actual authority to make such an offer."

A telegram to Stalin from the emperor. Truman's diary for July 18th.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #196 on: July 13, 2007, 06:40:23 PM »
And he was agreeing to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration? My understanding is that the only significant departure from Potsdam in the final terms was the Emperor clause. It has also been apparent from what I have read that while a lot of people were musing about peace at the time and doing little else to make it happen. Asking the Soviets to help negotiate with Americans on terms less than unconditional surrender, for example.

Here is the quote I find from that communications:

Quote
"With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms."


As much as I dislike Wikpidia as a specific source, this listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan does give a fairly good presentation as to what I've come across -- in a nutshell, Japanese intellectuals wishing for peace, militarists wishing for favorable peace to "fight to the last man" and holding the power, and the Emperor lacking the will to step up in a forceful manner until the very end.

Charon
« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 06:45:11 PM by Charon »

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #197 on: July 13, 2007, 07:49:42 PM »
Was sent before Potsdam, so couldn't be the exact same language. Stimson and MacArthur's diaries say it was the same terms as final accepted surrender (the emperor clause thing).

I don't think our opinions are that different. I probably put more weight on the aspect of showing Stalin that America held the cards since Truman was under great pressure from many to do that. I also think Truman was a decent man living in an indecent era.

That's evident in his letter to Senator Russell on August 9th in reply to his call for accepting no surrender, but rather the nuclear genocide of all Japanese.

-----------------
For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the "pigheadedness" of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into war the Japanese will very shortly fold up.

My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I have a humane feeling for the women and children of Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Harry S. Truman

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #198 on: July 13, 2007, 09:00:20 PM »
Quote
I don't think our opinions are that different. I probably put more weight on the aspect of showing Stalin that America held the cards since Truman was under great pressure from many to do that. I also think Truman was a decent man living in an indecent era.


Fair enough. I certainly don't discount that aspect played a role in the decision process.


Charon

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #199 on: July 14, 2007, 05:34:27 PM »
This:
"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the "pigheadedness" of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into war the Japanese will very shortly fold up.

My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I have a humane feeling for the women and children of Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Harry S. Truman"

Sort of sums it up.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #200 on: July 15, 2007, 09:33:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, rubbish.


Then why bother asking me?

I am telling you about one thing, and you make conclusions about another. If Grandma had balls...

But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo (without adventures like artillery bombardment of Romanian ports in 1941).

I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive".

What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR). Look at the Moscow negotiations in Aug 1939. True intentions of the "allies" were absolutely clear after Munich and rape of Czechoslovakia...

Offline 68ROX

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #201 on: July 15, 2007, 10:13:02 AM »
This dude is SO brainwashed it's funny!


68ROX

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #202 on: July 15, 2007, 10:19:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Then why bother asking me?

I am telling you about one thing, and you make conclusions about another. If Grandma had balls...

But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo (without adventures like artillery bombardment of Romanian ports in 1941).

I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive".

What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR). Look at the Moscow negotiations in Aug 1939. True intentions of the "allies" were absolutely clear after Munich and rape of Czechoslovakia...



Two quick things:
Red Navy in the Black Sea or Med = no match vs Krigsmarine & Italian Navy.
Not even against only one of them.

Second: Whatever you say about "Allied" stance in the early war, the British had their stance while the USSR was feeding and lubing up the Nazi war machine.

Enjoy this sunday. Beautiful weather here in the north.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2007, 10:21:32 AM by Angus »
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Laurie

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 753
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #203 on: July 15, 2007, 05:15:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 68ROX
This dude is SO brainwashed it's funny!


68ROX


point#1 I programmed a translator of borado into English, quite simple, everything= RED RED RED RED RED RED

point#2 i know squat about HTML Javascript, w/e its called

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #204 on: July 15, 2007, 05:48:31 PM »
Boroda:
"I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive"."

Now get this:
Material trade between the USA and Germany after the start of WW2 untill Pearl Harbour was technically possible AFAIK. However practically impossible, since the Royal Navy blocked transport. Not the Red Navy, the RN actually spells out as the Royal Navy.
In the meantime, the RN had to fight zeh Germanz. And the Germans were trading with the USSR. The Germans and the USSR split up Poland between them and went on the business line while their plots went on.
So, for some time the Nazi empire only had one real enemy, and that was one fronted with a cigar-smoking person.
Ergo, - not much trade with USA due to transport problems, - but a lot of trade with USSR (and Hitler chuckled I am sure).

On we go, - speculations go on, as well as some educational parts, - after all, I belive I had a part in telling you about the Molotov-Ribbentropf pact etc....
"But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo "

Of course USSR dominated anything IN the Black sea, but who held the plug? Yes, the Turks and the British. The British went far to keep a peace with the Turks, and the Germans were at the same time probably trying to get them to side on the Axis, - Turks kept on as neutral. So wonder and ponder if they would and could have stopped both the Kriegsmarine and the Italian Navy from entering the Black sea. With British as neutral, the Turks have a choice between USSR and anybody else put together.
As for proper air support, - again, with the British neutral, operation Barbarossa would have been somewhat earlier, and with some 2 or 3 times the Axis air-power. No German losses since 1940, full paratroop army (no Crete), and full Italian airforce strength, - which BTW was quite some in 1941.
Ergo: USSR Black sea ...boats... used for German target practise a-la Battlewagon. USSR ports and strongholds bombarded by Axis fleets, USSR ports submitted and docked, Axis naval artillery ranging 30 Km inland, Axis Paras grabbing important sites, all from the Black sea, at the same time as you have an opening on the western front and possibly in the far east as well. A situation like if the western Allied had invaded Normandy in 1941 with their force of 1944.
Would have been Zhukov's nightmare. Hitler's dream.
But there was zeh catch. Ein British plug.....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline dynamt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #205 on: July 15, 2007, 11:20:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
People born here in USSR after 1980 Olympics are mental aliens.


I was at the 1980 Olympics ( I live an hour N. of Lake Placid). It was great to see U.S. college kids beat the the Central Red Army team.:D

Offline dynamt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #206 on: July 15, 2007, 11:35:32 PM »
They had to beat those nasty Finns the next day to take the gold though.:)

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #207 on: July 16, 2007, 12:32:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by dynamt
They had to beat those nasty Finns the next day to take the gold though.:)


Yes, but beating the Finnish team just didn't compare at all to beating the Soviets. I'm not saying the Finns weren't good, they were very good. There was just something about being those commies that felt really really good. :D
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #208 on: July 16, 2007, 12:03:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Then why bother asking me?

I am telling you about one thing, and you make conclusions about another. If Grandma had balls...

But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo (without adventures like artillery bombardment of Romanian ports in 1941).

I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive".

What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR). Look at the Moscow negotiations in Aug 1939. True intentions of the "allies" were absolutely clear after Munich and rape of Czechoslovakia...
The Japanese whooped your arses in 1905, and you state the opposite for the Italians.    

As for this load of BS.  "What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR)."    

Stalin got involved when the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" was signed.

This is what Communism breeds, hatred.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 01:31:49 PM by Masherbrum »
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings
« Reply #209 on: July 16, 2007, 01:31:09 PM »
Woops, - now this is going to get Skuzzified.

I was actually rather enjoying the idea of a Black sea setup. And reading up too.
Would be a cool AH scenario if there was more from the early war planeset.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)