Are we going to war?

[Scayde]

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
Interesting conversation all, sidenote, the nukes which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to save American lives, that was the cover story, the Japanese were already suing for peace before all that happened. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets, but purely civilian targets. No the main reason nukes were dropped was to scare of the Russians.

I have never seen, nor did I find anything to support this arguement. If you have a source, I would be very interested in reading it

Also the election was not won by Bush, but by Gore, they did a recount a while back which declared Gore the winner, but old news, the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush, is that really demoracy.

Here again, this is a topic I followed very closely, adn as far as I know, everyrecount has shown Bush to be the winner..According to the electoral college..and {that is the manner in which the president of the US is chosen.we atre not a simple democracy, but a rebublic. The concept of the vote being a step removed by the general populace being the primary difference.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Scayde

I have never seen, nor did I find anything to support this arguement. If you have a source, I would be very interested in reading it

I've actually heard of this, but like you have never ever actually seen any material to support such an argument. It seems to stem from the assumption that the war (Pacific theatre) was chosen to end before the Russians could get any foothold into the Asian region. Hence the debate with the Kuril Islands , Japan say its theirs but Russia maintains that they liberated it. Would love to read anything about it.

[InfiniteNature]

As to the suing peace part, well the only real conflict was the US wanted unconditional surrender whereas the Japenese still wanted to keep their Emperor but the fact was the nukes were still entirely unnecessary at least with respect to attaining peace and saving American lives, Evidence well really it all depends on how one looks at the evidence, there is a lot of evidence for example to support the assertion that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed before it happened and just let it happen because he was so eager to get into a war, and also goaded the Japenese into war by cutting of oil and scrap iron. Of the top of my head Scayde I would suggest reading A people's history of the United States by Howard Zinn (Ben Affleck is a real champion of this book, I've read it its pretty good, so often history is just portrayed from elite's perspective and the conquerors, rather then the victims), but anyway it contains a whole bunch of references which are really quite fascinating, and all true of course, there are other books but its been so long, and if any of you have HBO there is a really cool miniseries coming out on it right now, apologies for no web sources, I'm still a bit old fashioned that way, most of my info still comes from books, and not those internet books, but you know paper books with pages and all, never could get into reading a good book online, for one thing its comforting to hear the pages turn, to smell the ink on the pages, and not have that constantly flickering screen irritating you plus its convenient, and to boot won't shut down during a thunderstorm, many is the time I sat back when the power went out and cradled up with a good book

I'll get back to you on the recount situation, I know I read it somewhere. In most cases the electoral college is the primary vote taker, but in the case of Bush's supposed election, the governing system became more akin to a democracy, as a the people's vote really did matter in that instance.

Oh never mind here are some web pages I found while doing a search. http://www.bushwatch.net/gorebush.htm

I hope they show up.

and here's another one

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/060201a.html

[Scayde]

Thanks for the links I-N......I am heading out, but I will take morte time to look them over tomorrow

[fable]

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
As to the suing peace part, well the only real conflict was the US wanted unconditional surrender whereas the Japenese still wanted to keep their Emperor but the fact was the nukes were still entirely unnecessary at least with respect to attaining peace and saving American lives, Evidence well really it all depends on how one looks at the evidence...

@IN, that kind of waffling won't cut it. You made some pretty damning accusations against the US in as straightforward and aggressive a way as possible when you wrote:

Interesting conversation all, sidenote, the nukes which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to save American lives, that was the cover story, the Japanese were already suing for peace before all that happened.

Now, let's hear the evidence you've got to back up the statement.

[InfiniteNature]

It's not waffling, its interpretation, history is more about interpretation then anything else, how one thing is weighted is often dependent on how that person feels on subject, which means depending on how the spin is properly placed something can seem other then what it really is, but since you asked, here is a interesting article, its a bit long but it gives some new interpretation on why Truman really dropped the bomb, and the Japenese really were suing for peace, they already knew they were losing it was just what terms surrendering would entail, I'll get more if you want.

http://www.odci.gov/csi/monograph/42536 ... 810001.htm

and here is another one, this one is shorter and not as long as the first one.

http://learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/heroesv ... /tru_3.htm

And Scayde your avatar really is quite nice.

[HighLordDave]

@InfiniteNature:
The Japanese were not trying to surrender when we dropped the bomb on them. In fact they had rejected peace envoys and had sneered at the Potsdam Declaration which called for an end to the war. There were even some militant elements within the military that wanted to keep fighting after we dropped the bombs.

The invasion of Okinawa started on 1 April 1945 and fighting on the island ended on or around 20 May 1945 with small pockets of resistance holding out for another month or so. So from the later part of May until early August, the Japanese could have surrendered and the world would have been a better place for it. However, they chose not to. You say that if the Allies had dropped their demands for an unconditional surrender, the Japanese would have done so; to my knowledge, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case. Also, all of the other Axis powers had surrendered unconditionally, so why should the Japanese have been given special terms?

Scaring the Soviets certainly played a role in Truman's decision to use the bomb. However, the documentary evidence suggests that he was more concerned with saving the lives of Allied soldiers than spooking Stalin. Much of this debate was played out here at SYM a year or so ago; do a search for "a-bomb" and you should find the thread.

[Tamerlane]

For those who are too lazy to use the search function.

Here is the thread.

[fable]

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
It's not waffling, its interpretation, history is more about interpretation then anything else, how one thing is weighted is often dependent on how that person feels on subject...

We're not arguing about the nature of history, and I think you know this. We are considering a pretty outrageous accusation against the US that you stated as fact, without reference to any background material. As follows:

Interesting conversation all, sidenote, the nukes which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to save American lives, that was the cover story, the Japanese were already suing for peace before all that happened.

So where's the "interpretation" room in those blunt allegations? You say, in effect, "This is why the bombs were dropped," and "The Japanese government was suing for peace before the bombs were dropped," almost as though you had research materials to back up these extraordinary statements.

But you don't offer research. Those links you provided do nothing more than repeat what you've said. They and you fly in the face of all the extensive documentation which has been accumulated over the last fifty years about what was happening at the time.

Far be it from me to argue that history can't be seen from many different perspectives. But when a person makes a direct statement as fact, much less an accusation against an entire nation, they should really have more to offer than a link to some undocumented page that simply says "It's so." Particularly if you're going to slander an entire nation.

[CM]

To the topic of the thread

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2708023.stm

Some may find that interesting...

[InfiniteNature]

It does not slander a nation to say that a decision was made a certain way and the websites I have listed do explain that Truman's decision was not entirely based solely on saving American lives, nor might it have been the primary decision. Nor is it slander to disregard fact.

Bear in mind that the only thing which the Japanese wanted was to keep their Emperor which happened anyway after the bombs were dropped. Thus the decision Truman made was not necessarily based on purely saving American lives, as saving American lives would have also entailed attempting a more diplomatic route rather then a military option. So the question is was Truman to clouded by the military alternative, by the need to prove to the Soviets that we had the bomb, that the bomb would work(a lot of money went into it), there were other alternatives to using the bomb besides just a massive invasion. Before the bomb was dropped Truman knew that the Japanese were ready to surrender, indeed were already negotiating a ceasefire, the rapidity of the surrender while contributed to by dropping of the bombs, but was not the primary factor, the primary factor was the possibility of the Soviets invading Japan, and the the millions of casulty figure was bull, in actuality the figure was closer to 75,000 casulties for a invasion.

Nor is it some undocumented page which says it is so one of the pages I have given comes directly from the History Channel.

But since my first link appears to have moved or is just really stupid here's another one with more detailed references.

http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html

Here is another one, read the book its pretty good.

http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings ... shima.html

Then there's a book called Atomic Diplomacy, which explains in better detail then I can as why Truman's motives might have been not entirely noble. There's more if you want, but my computer is slowing down, stupid public computer, and I gotta go to work anyway.

[fable]

Before the bomb was dropped Truman knew that the Japanese were ready to surrender, indeed were already negotiating a ceasefire...

Yet this is, again, what you initially wrote:

Interesting conversation all, sidenote, the nukes which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to save American lives, that was the cover story, the Japanese were already suing for peace before all that happened.

You've retreated from a statement that the Japanese had already asked the US for terms ("suing for peace") before the bombs were dropped. Now, you're saying simply that Truman knew the Japanese "were ready" for surrender, which can mean he simply thought they were beaten into stopping the war.

Please note that neither of your new links deal with either statement you've made.

Nor is it some undocumented page which says it is so one of the pages I have given comes directly from the History Channel.

The History Channel isn't a quotable source for information--or misinformation, for that matter. Books, drawn from source documents, with copious footnotes, are your only means of getting reasonably close to accurate facts; facts you can reread, analyze at your leisure, and verify for accuracy. Visual documentaries are exciting to watch, and useful to get a broader direct sensory experience than reading can provide, but otherwise inferior as an informational medium.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to have a solid, well-researched basis before making any outrageous attacks on a nation.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
Nor is it some undocumented page which says it is so one of the pages I have given comes directly from the History Channel.

There is a lot of misinformation that surrounds the whole bombing of Japan and it's really a subject with too many holes in it to stake any particular concise conclusion as to "who is to blame" and "why did it happen" it was a confluence of events, there are theories which state that the US wanted to test their bombs, there are theories to state that it was all Japan propoganda, there are theories to state that America knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen etc etc etc. They are all theories and the only people who know hte truth probably won't tell us anyway.

InfiniteNature, one suggestion, study some postmodernist theory, it makes one cynical but it does place perspective around the sources of information. I question how correct the History Channel were in comparison with any other source.

[HighLordDave]

InfiniteNature's original statement makes the mistake of assuming that all events in history are monocausal. This is of course, not true. Very few events can trace their origin to a single previous event. To say that the impeding Cold War did not affect Truman's decision to use the bomb is untrue, but it is equally untrue to say that the reason why nuclear weapons were used on Japan had nothing to do with saving American lives.

Truman was told by his chief military advisors that it would cost one million Allied casualties to invade and occupy Japan. He was told by his Marines in the Pacific theater how Japanese troops didn't surrender, how they would rush fortified positions in suicidal bonzai charges, how they would pilot planes and ships into Americans and how Japanese civilians on Okinawa preferred to kill themselves rather than be taken prisoner.

If you look at the documentary evidence: primary sources, including Truman's notes and correspondence and interviews with the principle who were around him when he decided to use the bomb, and secondary sources such as biographies and journal articles about the same people, it all suggests that Truman's primary focus was saving American lives. There is nothing to suggest that anything else was as focal to his decision as the prospect of ending the war without having to invade the main Japanese islands.

The Japanese themselves were not "suing for peace". They had sent envoys to the Soviet Union (who at the time was not at war with Japan), but those efforts cannot be characterised as "begging to surrender" as someone else on these boards has claimed or even "suing for peace". In fact the Japanese had rejected the Potsdam Declaration as "arrogant" and "presumptuous" without further dialogue. The Emperor himself favoured surrender, but his advisors feared that if this became public knowledge, the hardliners within the military would have him assassinated.

For their part, the Japanese did not know that the US had nuclear weapons (nor did anyone else, even America's allies). However, they did know that the massive B-29 raids were capable of destroying cities and they were warned that if they did not submit to the demands of unconditional surrender, a weapon of unspeakable horror would be used on them. The Japanese believed that the Americans would remove the Emperor, but this was never the case; they were told that the Emperor would be subject to the rule of the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, but no demands were made about his abdication or removal from the throne.

History is not only about interpretation, but also about research and facts. While perspective must be applied to all evidence, ignoring mountains of primary and secondary source evidence that doesn't fit someone's revisionist theory is poor scholarship and only leads to an undefendable thesis.

[InfiniteNature]

Its not revisionist, it doesn't ignore information it just attaches more importance to certain bits of information more then others, agreed my statement is monocausal, I agree, there are many different causes and flows which determine history, but to suggest the the primary reason was only that it was to save American lives and to say that there was no other alternative other then invasion or nuking them is a lie as there were diplomatic alternatives to purely military action, and yes the Japenese were suing for peace before the bombs were dropped, but Truman refused to back down on his unconditional surrender motive, if he was so interested in saving American lives modifying that demand would have been in equal priority.

It is not revisionist, because both sides use information at times the same information to further a argument, Because each side puts a different emphasis on information, basing those ideas on what they personally believe, such as the belief for example that the great old USA is always right always the good guy and oh no nonnoble motives just couldn't be attached to dropping the bomb, so lets just downplay that little bit of information which we don't like, understandeable really who really wants to find that it was dropped for less then noble reasons, I mean obviously nobody would drop it for anything less then noble reasons, oh no, the fact that Bush is currently considering dropping nukes as a way of saving American lives, thats a noble reason righttttt???, or could it be some other reason.

It wasn't one million, some of his advisors told him that others thought it would be much much less, so yes it was about saving lives, but other bits of information such as the soviets, as wanting to test the bomb, gave priority to the higher number, or in other words multiple reasons caused Truman to prefer the one million number from some of his advisors to the lesser number proposed by other advisors, a lesser number which would have meant not invasion but more conventional bombing such as more little things like the firebombing of Tokyo in a effort to convince the Japanese to 'unconditionally' surrender.

Oh hum from my reading and research on the internet I have found that the jury is still out on the topic, people are still arguing back and forth back and forth, each niether changing the mind of the other because niether side acknowledges the rightness of either side, or wrongness, I have no belief that arguing about the history of why the bomb was dropped will be resolved here either, nor do I believe that either I or yourselves will change their minds, too stubborn, so with my objective being to change minds being nullfied, I now drop out of the argument, just because I have no interest in merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

In any case what were we arguing about before this detour started?

[Chanak]

Excellent post @HLD. Very well put.