The Logic Off Topic list

What I wasn't understanding was your continued commentary that the Japanese
still wouldn't surrender after getting 2 atom bombs dropped on them, a
historical fact.  And I'd be equally presumptious to say that the Japanese
surrender was imminent prior to the first atomic bomb, it's equally a fact
that surrender was not imminent; if it truly were, there'd be no debate
today.

That's all I was trying to say.

I do hope you're quoting all your stuff for the benefit of others, I was not
until now the one challenging you!  (Other than of course wanting to clarify
that after Nagasaki the Japanese did surrender; I would just hate someone
young to walk away thinking that some other later event occurred causing the
Japanese surrender).

However, since others haven't given much in the way of arguments to counter
your comments please consider the following:

There is a letter to the Smithsonian widely disseminated by a number of
credible historians at
http://www.historians.org/directory/committees/heymanletter.html  In
particular this letter cites its sources so you can follow up.  It does not
quote but points to the following underlying sources.

Eisenhower is quoted variously as opposing the nuclear bomb, believing that
the Japanese were on the verge of surrender.  Authoritatively, in The White
House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (pp. 312-313), he stated, "During
his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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 that very moment, seeking some
way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face.""

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an
ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."   Hind sight is
so useful, eh?

In Truman's handwritten journal, released in 1979, where he noted in July of
1945 that Stalin had reported "a telegram from Jap Emperor asking for
 peace."

I cite these points primarily in the interest of a balanced argument.  I
don't know the truth any more than you or anyone now does.

Although I know I already wrote off-line to you about this GAmoore, since
I've dragged myself into this I'll state my own opinion.  Personally I'm
still conflicted about the first bomb.  I think it was probably necessary
though I tend to go either way when the discussion is limited to the ending
of the war alone.  In any case I do not condemn those who dropped it.  I
think their decision, right or wrong, was "fair".  But I think much
moreover, it was really important because it awoke the world, even America's
own scientists and military, to the precise damage, particularly as the
radiation studies took place years later and the death toll climbed.  We now
knew how destructive the weaponry was.  In my opinion, this saved us from a
massive nuclear exchange during the 1950s or early 1960s.  Also, it did
indeed have one of its intended effects - it scared the Russians and kept
them at bay.  Personally I think this was quite worthwhile.  I do think the
Nagasaki dropping was unnecessary myself.  There simply isn't a major Allied
military leader who backs it (Nagasaki).  Even Douglas MacArthur (who was
not consulted) opposed it, though perhaps he's not a good resource as he
opposed both, though ONLY it should be noted AFTER THE FACT so his opinion
ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

One of the things you must note, and it is very important, that all the
projections about the loss of life in the invasion of Japan were there
because the politicians were insisting on an UNconditional Japanese
surrender, including uncertainty as to the disposition of the Emperor.
MacArthur knew that it would take millions of deaths to achieve that but
being a soldier dutifully set about creating that scenario.  When the bombs
were dropped, the politicians then actually agreed to keep the Emperor,
totally sidestepping that which had been discussed in regards to the
invasion of Japan.

----- Original Message -----
From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] Japan blockage


> We seem to be going in circles here. Yes the Japanese did surrender - but
> only after a change of leadership in a sense - that change of leadership
> was precipitated by the atomic bombs - there for if there were no atomic
> bombs, there woiuld have been no change in leadership, and the hardliners
> would have prevailed, and you would have a north korea style isolated
> hostile country in Japan.
>
> Actually, I seem to recall that there was a Potsdam declaration asking
> for Japan to surrender BEFORE the atomic bombings, and they ignored that.
>
> I also on tv today something about how the British firebombed Hamburg and
> killed 40,000 in one night. War is hell.
>
> >I think I was just saying below read what you wrote - the Japanese must
have
> >been willing to surrender after two atomic bombs and the firebombing of
> >Tokyo, because they did surrender.  I am not making that up - ?
> >
> >
> >> The History channel just ran an hour show about Hirohito last week - he
> >> had been largely a figurehead - not unlike the Queen of England. Tojo
and
> >> other military shoguns were running the country. AFTER the second
atomic
> >> blast at Nagasaki, they still wanted to fight to the last man (or woman
> >> or child). It was only at that point that Hirohito stepped and actually
> >> took charge and said enough is enough.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>