Nuklear bomb

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Just to clarify for those actually reading this thread, I think you meant to say that the Allies were looking for "unconditional" surrender.

The Japanese wanted conditions, such as the retention of the Emperor, no demilitarization, no Allied occupation, and also wanted to keep some of their territorial gains.

The Japanese went to the Soviets (neutral with Japan at the time) to have them act as intermediaries to get the conditions put into the surrender terms. Here again, the Soviets did not want the war to end so quickly so they sort of played both sides against the middle. It didn't matter though because the Allies had agreed that "unconditional surrender" was the only option.

So yes it is true that Japan refused to surrender until after the second bomb and not immediately even then. I just discovered a piece of history I did not know before: elements of the Japanese military tried to stop the surrender with a coup and nearly succeeded.

Splitter

Hmm, I may have to do some more reading to refresh my memory.

But:

I thought the US basically gave an ultimatum that entailed: "surrender or you will be viciously attacked on your homeland." In other wards, the actions, or in this case, lack of actions of the emperor led to the 1st and 2nd bomb drop. I also thought any sort of negotiations to the terms of the conditional/unconditional surrender didn't even take place until Japan finally responded back well after the 2nd bomb had been dropped. Of course, I may be wrong, but I thought that's how I studied it.

In any case, Japan's emperor had the power to stop the attack at any time and knew full well of the consequences of not responding or not surrendering.

Such a tragic loss of life in any case.

Cheers!

[ATAG_Bliss]

Also,

As Blackdog previously stated. Very nice calm debate on this one. I've enjoyed it!

Thanks!

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

Hmm, I may have to do some more reading to refresh my memory.

But:

I thought the US basically gave an ultimatum that entailed: "surrender or you will be viciously attacked on your homeland." In other wards, the actions, or in this case, lack of actions of the emperor led to the 1st and 2nd bomb drop. I also thought any sort of negotiations to the terms of the conditional/unconditional surrender didn't even take place until Japan finally responded back well after the 2nd bomb had been dropped. Of course, I may be wrong, but I thought that's how I studied it.

In any case, Japan's emperor had the power to stop the attack at any time and knew full well of the consequences of not responding or not surrendering.

Such a tragic loss of life in any case.

Cheers!

To the best of my knowledge, the terms for surrender were negotiated amongst the Allies days before the bomb was dropped at the Potsdam conference. The bomb was tested early on during the conference and Truman was informed of the success. He told Churchill and hinted about it to Stalin, but Stalin didn't think the Manhattan project would come to fruition that quickly.

At the end of the conference, they put out a joint declaration (it took some convincing for Stalin to sign off on it). The declaration contained the terms for surrender with the last sentence speaking of "unconditional" and total destruction. It was also decided that none of the Allies would make a separate peace.

Good info here from what I remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Japan ignored the declaration but kept up diplomatic efforts to get the Soviets to intervene and get them better terms. Then time ran out.

To the best of my recollection.

Splitter

EDIT: I just repeated myself, sorry.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

To the best of my knowledge, the terms for surrender were negotiated amongst the Allies days before the bomb was dropped at the Potsdam conference. The bomb was tested early on during the conference and Truman was informed of the success. He told Churchill and hinted about it to Stalin, but Stalin didn't think the Manhattan project would come to fruition that quickly.

At the end of the conference, they put out a joint declaration (it took some convincing for Stalin to sign off on it). The declaration contained the terms for surrender with the last sentence speaking of "unconditional" and total destruction. It was also decided that none of the Allies would make a separate peace.

Good info here from what I remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Japan ignored the declaration but kept up diplomatic efforts to get the Soviets to intervene and get them better terms. Then time ran out.

To the best of my recollection.

Splitter

EDIT: I just repeated myself, sorry.

Yes I understand and realize the negotiations took place, days prior, between the allies. But what I'm saying is it took the 2nd bomb to actually get the emperor to the negotiating table. In other words, he ignored everything and didn't respond until the 2nd nuke had been dropped. Is that correct?

If so, that was my point. He could have stopped it and was well warned of the consequences of his choice or lack there of. That's why I say the US should not have the majority of the blame placed on them for the drops. The emperor knew and was well warned of what would happen "IF" he didn't surrender or respond. But if we want to go back to cause and effect, we could also go back as far as what started the war in the 1st place.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's how I thought I remembered studying the strike.. Gonna watch the youtube video that was posted..

Cheers!

[Splitter]

Ah, understood. My understanding is the same.

Splitter

[julian265]

I don't see the point of the discussion of the moral correctness of the A-bomb as used on Japan in the second war.

Why? Even counting delayed death to radiation related causes, I think many, many more people were killed in conventional (fire) bombing of cities across Japan. If they didn't drop the A-bombs, they probably would have continued the large-scale bombing raids to the same effect, just over a longer time.

IMO, a discussion more relevant to human suffering would be about the mass bombing of civilian population, regardless of the weapon type. That's not to say that A-bombs aren't worth talking about, I am just puzzled as to why they're talked about as the cruellest thing the west did to Japan, when the numbers say otherwise.

Willing to discuss, of course

[swiss]

But what I'm saying is it took the 2nd bomb to actually get the emperor to the negotiating table.

And that's ok - since this bomb had the name of a different city already painted on it...

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

And that's ok - since this bomb had the name of a different city already painted on it...

I seem to recall that they had to divert on one of the runs due to weather and the target being obscured...was that the first or second?

Julian: It is one of those misguided things about the war. Both sides thought, at times, that bombing civilians would would weaken their resolve and weaken the enemy's will to make war. I don't think that was ever successful.

Bombing industries was obviously a legitimate exercise and just as obviously worked. The problem was accuracy even when they were going after industrial targets. Factories were close to populations and a LOT of bombs missed. They pretty much had to carpet bomb areas to take out their targets. As usual, civilians paid a heavy price.

I agree with you, Bliss. I wish we would pull back and not be the policemen of the world. Just secure our interests around the world (oil, allies), secure our borders, and let the rest of the world deal with the evil people in power around the globe. I would never want us to get weak again militarily as our "weakness" had been viewed as "opportunity" for aggressors in the past (like Pearl).

We should bring our troops from all around the world home and put out the warning to leave us absolutely alone or else. Trade would be done fairly, no foreign aid. We would make it known that attacks on our shortened list of real allies would be viewed as an attack on the country itself. We would save a ton of money and erase our debt in no time.

The problem is....we would be called back into world politics within a decade or two. China has to go to war with someone sometime soon and there are plenty of other aggressive regimes that would soon get out of control when left to their own devices.

The good news for us would be that once again we would be invited back into world politics like WWI and WWII instead of being seen as "aggressors" as we are now. Face it, no one wants us until they need us.

Splitter

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by julian265

I don't see the point of the discussion of the moral correctness of the A-bomb as used on Japan in the second war.

Why? Even counting delayed death to radiation related causes, I think many, many more people were killed in conventional (fire) bombing of cities across Japan. If they didn't drop the A-bombs, they probably would have continued the large-scale bombing raids to the same effect, just over a longer time.

IMO, a discussion more relevant to human suffering would be about the mass bombing of civilian population, regardless of the weapon type. That's not to say that A-bombs aren't worth talking about, I am just puzzled as to why they're talked about as the cruellest thing the west did to Japan, when the numbers say otherwise.

Willing to discuss, of course

That wasn't really the point of the discussion. It was brought up because of talk of the availability or lack there of for the nuke in-game.

The cruelest thing that happened in the war is what started it. Those chain of events, leading up to the present, led to the US being the biggest military on the planet, spending more in defense/military than almost every other country in the world combined. Before the war, we did have a military, of course, but were very content with staying on our own continent and living the "dream." After Pearl we built up and industrialized a huge invasion force/fleet/planes/tanks/ etc., and fought in both the east and west.

Does anyone think how the world would be if WW2 never took place? Or think about what caused the way things are today? I would give anything to have the US of the early 40's again. Now we are spending out of control and our number 1 export is weapons. I have remorse for those innocently killed and, as far as I'm concerned, anyone that dies from any military power.

But I'm far more concerned with the after effects of the world from those few people in power that control millions.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

The cruelest thing that happened in the war is what started it.

The invasion of Poland?

The deaths of about 5,000 at Pearl Harbour? Wikipedia says less than that:

2,402 personnel were killed[9] and 1,282 were wounded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Pearl Harbour was unexpected, and the Japanese made a complete mess of their Declaration of War that was supposed to precede it, but in actuality was completed after the raid, but there's no way that's the worst thing that happened in WW2.