and since my father was a marine slotted to be in that invasion force, i likely would not be here typing this right now.

(07-01-2014 07:51 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  and since my father was a marine slotted to be in that invasion force, i likely would not be here typing this right now.

My grandfather missed D-Day by one and a half months. He didn't reach France till mid-July of '44. Since my mother was born in '50, I consider that fortuitous. I also consider it fortuitous I got to know him as well.

My dad had flown B-24s on the Ploesti raids (the highest casualty rate of any Allied operation in WWII) and was back in the states transitioning to B-25s to fly the invasion of Japan when Truman dropped the bombs. My dad and mom were married within a month. My mom told my son and I the story in detail when we took her to tour Hiroshima.

I think Truman dropped the bombs in large part to get the war over before the Russians could get involved with Japan in any kind of major way. He was finding out first hand how difficult it was to deal with the Russians at Potsdam, and did not want to repeat the experience.

(07-02-2014 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Truman dropped the bombs in large part to get the war over before the Russians could get involved with Japan in any kind of major way. He was finding out first hand how difficult it was to deal with the Russians at Potsdam, and did not want to repeat the experience.

Both Truman and LBJ said -- after they were president -- that trusting the Soviets to keep their word about various agreements was the worst mistake they made while in office.

(07-02-2014 09:09 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Truman dropped the bombs in large part to get the war over before the Russians could get involved with Japan in any kind of major way. He was finding out first hand how difficult it was to deal with the Russians at Potsdam, and did not want to repeat the experience.

Both Truman and LBJ said -- after they were president -- that trusting the Soviets to keep their word about various agreements was the worst mistake they made while in office.

Even Churchill made that mistake, at first.

I did hear somewhere about how the second A-bomb dropping wasn't really necessary, I think it was a documentary or something. I don't remember the rationale, and I'm not convinced.

(07-03-2014 09:00 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I did hear somewhere about how the second A-bomb dropping wasn't really necessary, I think it was a documentary or something. I don't remember the rationale, and I'm not convinced.

The thing is this: after dropping #1 on Hiroshima on August 6th, the messages coming from Japan's leaders were mixed. Surrender or fight on? There is some evidence that Japanese scientists were asked whether (and how quickly) they could come up with an atomic bomb of their own. (A: several years, but they probably didn't know that).

My honest hunch is that Japan would've surrendered anyway (in a few more days) even without the #2 bomb on Nagasaki, but I can also understand Truman's refusal to wait around for an answer. All in all, I consider Truman to have had a negative influence on American politics and government, but I think he made the correct decisions in regards to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and thus ending the war as soon as possible.

(07-03-2014 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:00 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I did hear somewhere about how the second A-bomb dropping wasn't really necessary, I think it was a documentary or something. I don't remember the rationale, and I'm not convinced.

The thing is this: after dropping #1 on Hiroshima on August 6th, the messages coming from Japan's leaders were mixed. Surrender or fight on? There is some evidence that Japanese scientists were asked whether (and how quickly) they could come up with an atomic bomb of their own. (A: several years, but they probably didn't know that).

My honest hunch is that Japan would've surrendered anyway (in a few more days) even without the #2 bomb on Nagasaki, but I can also understand Truman's refusal to wait around for an answer. All in all, I consider Truman to have had a negative influence on American politics and government, but I think he made the correct decisions in regards to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and thus ending the war as soon as possible.

They might have surrendered, but maybe not. I can see where we wouldn't have wanted to just wait and hope - because it could have simply provided time for the Japanese to improve their shoreline defenses.

(07-03-2014 10:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  They might have surrendered, but maybe not. I can see where we wouldn't have wanted to just wait and hope - because it could have simply provided time for the Japanese to improve their shoreline defenses.

Yes.

(07-03-2014 10:36 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:00 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I did hear somewhere about how the second A-bomb dropping wasn't really necessary, I think it was a documentary or something. I don't remember the rationale, and I'm not convinced.

The thing is this: after dropping #1 on Hiroshima on August 6th, the messages coming from Japan's leaders were mixed. Surrender or fight on? There is some evidence that Japanese scientists were asked whether (and how quickly) they could come up with an atomic bomb of their own. (A: several years, but they probably didn't know that).

My honest hunch is that Japan would've surrendered anyway (in a few more days) even without the #2 bomb on Nagasaki, but I can also understand Truman's refusal to wait around for an answer. All in all, I consider Truman to have had a negative influence on American politics and government, but I think he made the correct decisions in regards to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and thus ending the war as soon as possible.

They might have surrendered, but maybe not. I can see where we wouldn't have wanted to just wait and hope - because it could have simply provided time for the Japanese to improve their shoreline defenses.

IMO the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki erased any doubts that the first bomb was only a fluke chance and the US had the capability to "mass produce" this destructive force. As mentioned by Native Georgian, it brought about a quicker unconditional surrender from Japan to end the war.

(07-03-2014 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  All in all, I consider Truman to have had a negative influence on American politics and government, but I think he made the correct decisions in regards to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and thus ending the war as soon as possible.

I have as much admiration and respect for Truman in that situation as any other in U.S. Presidential history. The man garnered as much information as he could at the time, and made a horribly difficult decision.

(07-10-2014 11:31 AM)Phillip26r Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:13 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  All in all, I consider Truman to have had a negative influence on American politics and government, but I think he made the correct decisions in regards to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and thus ending the war as soon as possible.

I have as much admiration and respect for Truman in that situation as any other in U.S. Presidential history. The man garnered as much information as he could at the time, and made a horribly difficult decision.

From what I've read, he considered that a pretty easy decision. Though I haven't read that much about it from Truman's point of view.

I originally got interested in this topic when I had to research it for my history minor in college. We had "lab" sessions and my group was divided in two to argue for and against dropping the bombs. I was on the "for" side and when the group of professors and grad students judged our presentations the "for" side won the argument 5 to 0. The "against" team always tried to argue it was immoral to drop it or that a blockade would have eventually forced the Japanese to surrender without risk to further Allied lives; but at the end of the day it was plain that even with a blockade that had no further bombings, several million more Japanese would have starved to death slowly than died in the 2 bomb drops.

Either an invasion or a blockade (that would have probably lasted into 1947 or as long as the early '50's) would have cost more Japanese lives than even 5 atom bomb attacks.

Japan and Russia STILL haven't signed a Peace Treaty ending their WW 2 involvement

And the dispute is over the possession of the South Kuril Islands, which Russia took from Japan at the end of WWII.

Japan is actually a pretty big place and a blockade would be difficult to force the Japanese into anything. They were a feudal/serf society only 100 years before and many parts of the country side were no different in 1945 than they were in 1845. A lot of Japanese would have been fine, if not a little hungry. As such, the US did not expect Japan to surrender quickly and the Manhattan Project was geared to keep delivering bombs until they surrendered.

I've found it interesting to read some pretty compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. Linked here, if you are so inclined. The Japanese simply had to know that the USA would be far kinder occupiers than the Soviets.

(And above link doesn't mean that the use of the atomic bombs was wrong or unnecessary.)