On Nov 3, 7:47?pm, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
snip
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. 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.

Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure,
unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not
entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military
leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the
reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the
internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in
the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced
everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to
be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation
Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write
Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody
named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with
Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice
enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job
had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a
good idea.

Sure, it was a disgraceful thing. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese
actions in China however. Not even close.

Indeed. I had a great aunt and uncle killed in the So Pacific by the
Japanese. They were British civilians.



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.

Ah, so all we had to do was go along with the "divine emperor" remaining
in charge and retain his claim of divinity and they would have
surrendered. Were there any other conditions? Would it have been hard
to reform the government with the "divine emperor" on his throne?

Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of
surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The
authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state
shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...."

We left the emperor in place, a move that was probably well calculated
to make the rebuilding and restructuring of the country. Even if
everybody knew that Hirohito was taking his orders from the Allies,
the changes were easier to accept as edicts from the Emperor.

On Nov 3, 10:56?am, WaIIy 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 invasion.

What a suprise coming from just another "Useful idiot".

Are you characterizing Admiral Leahy as a useful idiot?
That was his opinion at the time, and he was Chief of Staff to both
Roosevelt and Truman.

On Nov 3, 10:29 am, " JimH" ask wrote:
"Hiroshima Facts" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:12 am, " JimH" ask wrote:
"Hiroshima Facts" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job
or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't
think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

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 invasion.

Perhaps, but that wasn't guaranteed. And it wasn't a reason to delay
the A-bombs.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice".

Perhaps to some extent, but Truman's main concern was convincing Japan
to surrender.

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.

There was no 3rd bomb ready for use. It was months away from
development.

That is incorrect. Japan missed the third A-bomb by about a week.

There were implosion assemblies already at Tinian. All they needed
was a plutonium core to put in them.

On August 11, that core was just leaving Los Alamos, to be flown to
the Pacific for a bombing around August 17-18. However, Japan had
begun to talk about surrendering the day before, and Truman had
responded by ordering a temporary halt to A-bombing to give them a
little breathing room. Groves took that a step further and ordered a
halt to shipping the core. The core only made it as far as the Los
Alamos parking lot before it was recalled.

On August 14, Truman ordered that the core be shipped and that it be
used on Tokyo. However, a few hours later Japan surrendered and the
war was over. Because of the three day delay in shipping the core,
the bombing would have been around August 20-21.

After the third bomb, there would have been a delay of some months,
but not because we lacked A-bombs. The delay would have been because
we would have begun saving them up to clear the beaches just before we
invaded.

Expected production rates would have been another three in September,
another four in October, another five in November, another seven (or
more) in December, and about ten a month from then on.

Thanks. I was just repeating what was said in the Burns "The War" PBS
documentary. I guess they were wrong.

Yes. I cringed at that part. They made three huge errors in a couple
quick lines.

They also said the Nazis were racing to build their own A-bomb. We
did fear that during the war, and that fear is what led us to rush our
own A-bomb program. But in reality the Nazis had erroneously
concluded that an A-bomb was impossible, so they weren't pursuing it.

And worst of all they had absurdly high figures for the post-1945
radiation deaths -- far higher than what actually happened.

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, 2:43 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:23:57 -0700, Hiroshima Facts
wrote:

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.

Rewriting history ?

Nope. Just a straightforward statement of the facts.

On Nov 3, 5:18 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:23?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.

Not according to the cirriculum from a course called "Atomic America"
taught at the University of New Mexico:

"From three to thirty years after the bombing the number of cases of
leukemia in Hiroshima was fifteen times higher than that of the rest
of Japan (Shohno 62). Leukemia results when abnormal white blood cells
produce wildly; it is a type of blood cancer. The blue stigmata
(marks) that radiation victims exhibit are a symptom of leukemia. They
result from blood so filled with white cells that it loses its red
color. The white blood cells caused by leukemia tend to clump together
instead of fighting bacteria. Therefore, those with leukemia are very
susceptible to other infections. Usually they die from pneumonia that
their immune system cannot fight off.

Most cancers have a longer incubation period than does leukemia. At
Hiroshima fifteen years after the bomb, death by non-blood cancers
began to increase among survivors who had been exposed to more than
100 rads of radiation (Shohno 62). Lung cancer, breast cancer, and
thyroid cancer are all stimulated by high dosages of radiation.
Cancers of the colon, stomach, urinary organs, and blood marrow are
also probably linked to dosages of radiation. The uranium miners in
the United States who provided the raw material to fuel the nuclear
programs have reported much higher incidence of lung cancer than
normal (Justice)."

That quote does not contradict the fact that there were only a few
thousand deaths due to A-bomb radiation after 1945.

It is true that a few hundred of those deaths were Leukemia though.

On Nov 4, 12:57 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

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.

Not necessarily. Some of the military leaders had an axe to grind
when they made their comments.

Of course, so do some present day historians. But the mainstream
seems to have formed a reasonable consensus on the matter.

On Nov 4, 1:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of
surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The
authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state
shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...."

That line is saying that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces
can depose the Emperor if he feels like it.

On Nov 4, 1:13 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:56?am, WaIIy 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 invasion.

What a suprise coming from just another "Useful idiot".

Are you characterizing Admiral Leahy as a useful idiot?

Hmmm......

Well, all Leahy had to say about the bomb during the war was "I'm and
expert in explosives, and I say these things will never work".

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.