gordondaviesmoustache said:
The second one, whilst more morally questionable, was not dropped wantonly imo.
When the Hiroshima bomb was dropped the US expected Japan to surrender immediately. They did not and in the hours and days that followed were procrastinating at best and playing brinkmanship at worst. It is possible that they thought that US would not drop another bomb or did not have one. They were also overly fixated on the fate of the Emperor who they still saw as a god. Truman made a decision to have another show of strength, because he concluded that the first bomb had not been sufficient to properly concentrate Japanese minds. In fairness to him, thousands of lives were being lost on both sides every day as the war continued and an invasion of the mainland, which was feasible at that point, would have been an absolute bloodbath.
Whatever you say about its morality per se it completely changed the dynamic of the Japanese and ended the war almost immediately. I must confess that if I'd been the Commander-in-Chief at the time, the Nagasaki bomb, much more so than the one over Hiroshima, would have given me nightmares in the weeks, months and years that followed. He certainly could have waited longer than 76 hours after the first bomb before dropping the second, but otherwise , in those circumstances, I can't in all honesty say, with 100% certainly that I would have done any different.
I think there is very good reason to cast doubt upon your summary of the situation:
I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.
Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.
John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War
P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.
President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
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.
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-- Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:36 am --
gordondaviesmoustache said:
People with the surname Blair are always men of integrity.
Good point that.
