On Nov 3, 10:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:

You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to
the conclusion that they would surrender?

Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy.

Leahy's observations to that effect were not made "during that time".
They were made years after the war had ended.

Ike is about the only one who claimed Japan was trying to surrender,
but he didn't make a big deal over it, and the only person he told
(Stimson) didn't take him very seriously.



Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Not necessarily. Historians have access to pretty much all the
knowledge that they had during the war.



Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?

According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a
position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were
willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to
remain on his throne.

That was MacArthur's view years after the war. Just after Hiroshima
his view was still that Japan wouldn't surrender until the US invaded
Japan.

And we never made any agreement regarding keeping the Emperor. The
surrender terms gave MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor if he
felt like it.

On Nov 3, 12:46?pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:12:36 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Quite the opposite.

Well of course you're right. Rush Limbaugh obviously has a better
handle on what happened in WWII than the generals who commanded the
armed forces at the time. :-)

History is written by the winners. Once the official "interpretation"
of events is in place, it takes on a life of its own.

Far be it from me to say what did or did not happen at the end of
WWII.
I wasn't even born yet.

But I think that dismissing out of hand comments by the top ranking
military commanders of the day, (comments that were made during or
immediately after the events in question), in favor of analysis made
10, 20, or 30 years later for a variety of purposes and agendas may be
somewhat careless.

WaIIy wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:12:36 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Most of the world remains highly racist.

We're talking about WW2, not your PC editorials.

Take the blinders off Wally.

?
Remember Pearl Harbor. And Nanking. And Battan.
JR

Chuck Gould wrote:


So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.








--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

On Nov 3, 8:05?pm, JR North wrote:
?
Remember Pearl Harbor. And Nanking. And Battan.
JR
So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and
Chuck Gould wrote:


Of course.

There was no excuse for many of the Japanese actions during WWII.

Once hostilities end, each side has to deal with the aftermath of its
own decisions.

It's not my place to judge whether the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
were "right" or "wrong". I'm simply pointing out that my research into
the subject indicates we had more options than some revisionist
militarists would prefer to have us believe. Whether any of the other
options would have been "better" or "worse" is useless conjecture.

About a year after the war ended, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
report concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all
probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered
even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not
entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or
contemplated." Yes, the conclusion in that report could have been
wrong, but I would have to give the Strategic Bombing Survey report at
least equal credibility with the opinions of talk show hosts and
historians 60 years after the fact.

I can't think of any major national issue or decision in which there
hasn't been a difference of opinion. In the interest of establishing
the best possible insight into the past, it is useful to know that
many people
at that time- including some very responsible, patriotic, loyal
Americans in positions of military authority, disagreed with Truman's
decision to nuke the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once it's done,
it's done- so questions about good, bad, better, or worse are simply
academic. What we can profit from the experience is a lesson in
evaluating options and dealing with the aftermath of choices.

I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or
even born) at the time.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:


I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or even
born) at the time.

Obviously, nor can we say, with any certainty, that the Japanese would have surrendered
without the use of A-bombs. However, forty years after the war, their plans to defend against
the invasion were declassified. If they were implemented, they definitely would have cost a
major number of American lives.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../downfall.html

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 3, 8:05?pm, JR North wrote:
?
Remember Pearl Harbor. And Nanking. And Battan.
JR
So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and
Chuck Gould wrote:


Of course.

There was no excuse for many of the Japanese actions during WWII.

Once hostilities end, each side has to deal with the aftermath of its
own decisions.

It's not my place to judge whether the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
were "right" or "wrong". I'm simply pointing out that my research into
the subject indicates we had more options than some revisionist
militarists would prefer to have us believe. Whether any of the other
options would have been "better" or "worse" is useless conjecture.

About a year after the war ended, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
report concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all
probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered
even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not
entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or
contemplated." Yes, the conclusion in that report could have been
wrong, but I would have to give the Strategic Bombing Survey report at
least equal credibility with the opinions of talk show hosts and
historians 60 years after the fact.

I can't think of any major national issue or decision in which there
hasn't been a difference of opinion. In the interest of establishing
the best possible insight into the past, it is useful to know that
many people
at that time- including some very responsible, patriotic, loyal
Americans in positions of military authority, disagreed with Truman's
decision to nuke the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once it's done,
it's done- so questions about good, bad, better, or worse are simply
academic. What we can profit from the experience is a lesson in
evaluating options and dealing with the aftermath of choices.

I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or
even born) at the time.


My uncle spent the war as a shooter in the South Pacific. He left SF on a
troop ship to Guadalcanal during the first blackout of WWII. He woke up in
a hospital in the Philippines the day the Japanese surrendered. He figured
the bomb saved his life! He would have gone to Japan invasion after
recovering from the handgrenade damage. The worst fear was to be a prisoner
of the Japanese. So most battles were fought to the extreme. When he
arrived in Guadalcanal, there were still marines hung on stakes that the
Japanese used for bayonet practice. When he woke up in the hospital, there
was a Philippine nurse in the room who he mistook for Japanese and he shook
so bad they said he moved the bed across the room. And still shook for 3
days afterwards when the doctor finally convinced him he was in an American
hospital. Yes the bomb was horrific, but the whole war was horrific, and
the Pacific / Asian theater was just a lot worse than the European action.
**** happens in war, and the payback for the Japanese extracted a terrible
penalty. But we were still correct in the bombings. They dropped the first
bomb and the Japanese thought it was a fluke. Nagasaki, happened to be
secondary target as the primary was cloud covered. The 2nd got the
attention the first should have gotten by those in control.

wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasio

The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this
assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands
years after the war

Even up to a few years ago, there were forgotten and ancient japanese
soldiers living off the land on many of the thousands of islands, that
were still manning their posts.

Quite commendable actually.

On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasio

The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this
assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands
years after the war

Even up to a few years ago, there were forgotten and ancient japanese
soldiers living off the land on many of the thousands of islands, that
were still manning their posts.

Quite commendable actually.

I don't think they were defeated, and I never met one soldier from
that theatre that thought they were either.

On Nov 2, 1:34?pm, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasio

The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this
assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands
years after the war. I dsoubt there was any kind of attrition war that
would have defeated them and we might still have an Iraqi style
insurrection around the world.
Remember the Japanese invented the suicide bomber.

The conquest of Okinawa undoubtedly contributed to the disheartened
state of the Japanese empire at the time of the bombing. From what I
have been able to learn after the fact, I tend to agree with the
opinions expressed by Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as
Admiral Leahy. We had options. We chose one that proved to work
decisively.
Monday morning quarterbacks and certain generals and admirals will
long debate whether we chose the "best" option. We succeeded in
keeping the Russians out of Japan, denying them warm water Pacific
naval bases that would have allowed them to more easily launch a
conventional, 1940's style war against the United States.