# Historians' report: US ready to use cyanide poison gas in WWII



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

According to recent research by two American historians on the basis of declassified US government files, if the nuclear bombing of Japan had not worked, the American government planned to drop massive amounts of poison gas (including cyanide, the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds) to terrorize Japan into surrender. It was calculated that about 5 million Japanese civilians would have been killed.

See: http://www.opendemocracy.net/confli... time. Make of this comparison what you will.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

wait, were they going to use this _instead_ of the Nuclear bombs or after them?


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

trump said:


> wait, were they going to use this _instead_ of the Nuclear bombs or after them?


According to the report, the US had made only two nuclear bombs, the two that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they calculated that they could not make any more for several months. They hoped that the two that were used would lead to a surrender, but were ready to proceed with the gas atack if the nuclear alternative had not succeeded.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This may have been discussed, but I cannot believe that President Truman, a soldier in WWI, who saw the effects of mustard gas, would ever approve of this act. I don't see this as the American Government studying this possible crime against humanity, but rather, various people in the military studying various possible scenarios to end the war.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> This may have been discussed, but I cannot believe that President Truman, a soldier in WWI, who saw the effects of mustard gas, would ever approve of this act. I don't see this as the American Government studying this possible crime against humanity, but rather, various people in the military studying various possible scenarios to end the war.



I wish I could share your disbelief.
The dropping of the atomic bombs, was probably the single most heinous war crime in the history of the world.

Truman should never be forgiven and his actions never be forgotten.

Truly, the victors write the history.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Anyone interested in understanding the mindset that went into the bombing of Japan during WWII should watch "The Fog of War" where Robert McNamara gives his accounts of that period of history... A very interesting little movie.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Anyone interested in understanding the mindset that went into the bombing of Japan during WWII should watch "The Fog of War" where Robert McNamara gives his accounts of that period of history... A very interesting little movie.



It should be required viewing for all polilticians capable of declaring war.
The Fog of War is basically McNamara's not-so-obvious confession for the sins he obviously feels guilty for. His epitaph if you will. He is visible choked up on several occassion throughout the film. Perhaps he feels he might make it to heaven. I certainly hope not.

I thought the film dealt much more with the Vietnam war and Cuban missile crisis.

The film showed me that it's easy to send people to their deaths when you're sitting in the cheap seats.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I can only echo what you said, Macspectrum. I was interested to read yesterday that one of the surviving bombers said that there are no innocent victims in war, that all citizens are in some way contributing to the war effort. I wonder if that included all the children killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as those being killed today in various parts of the world) and those unborn children who suffered the after effects of the atomic bombs. If the US was willing to use atomic bombs on human beings I can see no reason why they wouldn't use poison gas.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I thought the film dealt much more with the Vietnam war and Cuban missile crisis.



That is true, however the treatise (albeit short) on the fire bombing of Japan and Curtis LeMay's comment about being war criminals if they were on the losing side was very enlightening.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

As "news" goes, this is very old.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I wish I could share your disbelief.
> The dropping of the atomic bombs, was probably the single most heinous war crime in the history of the world.


agreed. except for maybe the holocaust (or any holocaust - there has been more than one).

i can't believe how we are brought up to believe this was necessary to end the war.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

You know, 

One thing I hate about this debate is that everyone forgets the Japanese started a war of aggression than killed millions of people in South East Asia. 

Millions. 

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski was horrendous, but it ended the war unconditionally and led to the modern, progressive Japan we see today. 

That wouldn't have happened with out hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more casualties on both sides, if at all.

But such a line of thinking wouldn't fit in with "Blame America" or historical revisionism that downplays Japan's responsiblity for its downfall with the American and Allied role. 

I can't believe people are questioning World War II. How much more clear can war get then that?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> You know,
> 
> One thing I hate about this debate is that everyone forgets the Japanese started a war of aggression than killed millions of people in South East Asia.
> 
> ...


I don't think we are debating the justification for World War II. Clearly Japan and Germany were aggressors. In both cases each country had expansionist goals for both territory and more importantly resources (not that we know any countries who do that today).

In both cases Japan and Germany were completely and utterly brutal to segments of the populations they conquered.

But that being the cases I think what is being discussed here were the tactics being employed by the US during the later days of WWII. Japan was beaten. They had no capability of waging an offensive conflict and the Americans had soundly and thoroughly trounced them. The issue here was the use of fire bombs and eventually nuclear weapons on a completely defenseless mostly civilian population. While I do not for a moment think that the German or Japanese leadership of the time would not have employed similar tactics against the Allies if they were capable, that doesn't make their use in anyway more acceptable.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Fact: Japan was not beaten. It had hundreds of thousands of troops ready to fight to the death, and had an almost one to one ratio with the proposed allied invasion force. For anyone who knows anything about war, you want 3 to 1, 5 to 1, and if possible 10 to, but certainly not one to one. 

I wish people would stop revising history. I also wish they'd stop using "We know the Axis would have done it, but the Allies should have been better than that". 

Horrendous yes. Necessary, yes. Do I hope it never happens again? Most definitely. Would I have dropped the bomb if I was Truman. 

Yes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

NBiB said:


> I can't believe people are questioning World War II. How much more clear can war get then that?


I don't see any evidence that people are questioning WWII. It's clear that the German and the Japanese governments of the time had to be stopped. That does not mean the that the end justifies the means.

The argument about the atomic bomb saving the lives of millions of soldiers on both sides has been pretty much debunked historically AFAIK. Some documents were released at least a decade ago or more that showed that Truman's worry at the time was not so much the Japanese, but the Soviets moving into Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the last bombs of WWII, but the first bombs of the Cold War, meant to demonstrate to Stalin that he had better not set foot in Japan. The racism of the time meant that it was politically acceptable to waste Japanese civilians to achieve that end.

da_jonesy, you said much of what I wanted to say, a few minutes earlier.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

NBiB said:


> I wish people would stop revising history.


History's rough draft gets revised as more information becomes available. There are still classified docs from the time.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

> i can't believe how we are brought up to believe this was necessary to end the war.


Some of us were not. This seems to me to be a strictly North American viewpoint. Much of the footage I saw when growing up has never been shown on North American television.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> Fact: Japan was not beaten. It had hundreds of thousands of troops ready to fight to the death, and had an almost one to one ratio with the proposed allied invasion force. For anyone who knows anything about war, you want 3 to 1, 5 to 1, and if possible 10 to, but certainly not one to one.


You forget (our choose to completely overlook the fact) that the US did not have to Invade Japan. Japan at that time was easily containable. The US had the most powerful Blue Water Navy in the world. They had the capability and the means to enforce a blockade and literally starve Japan from resources it could never produce on it's own. They could and did bomb every conceivable military target repeatedly. There was no rush to invade.



NBiBooker said:


> I wish people would stop revising history. I also wish they'd stop using "We know the Axis would have done it, but the Allies should have been better than that".


Who is revising anything? There is no revision going on here.



NBiBooker said:


> Horrendous yes. Necessary, yes. Do I hope it never happens again? Most definitely. Would I have dropped the bomb if I was Truman.
> 
> Yes.


Wow... pretty powerful statement. So 100 000 plus people mean nothing to you. That's pretty cavalier (there are probably better words... but for the sake of decorum I will refrain from using them). I would think that the responsible position would have been to blockade Japan and starve them into submission. That may have taken longer but certainly would have resulted less casualties in the long run.

In my opinion human life is far more valuable (including your enemies).


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Fact: Japan was not beaten. It had hundreds of thousands of troops ready to fight to the death, and had an almost one to one ratio with the proposed allied invasion force. For anyone who knows anything about war, you want 3 to 1, 5 to 1, and if possible 10 to, but certainly not one to one.
> 
> I wish people would stop revising history. I also wish they'd stop using "We know the Axis would have done it, but the Allies should have been better than that".
> 
> ...


Fact: You are wrong.


> Rewriting History
> By LANCE GAY
> Aug 5, 2005, 05:38
> Email this article
> ...


According to these documents Japan was looking for a way out as early as April but the Allies didn't want to make a deal to save Hirohito. These document go on to sugest it was Russia's attack NOT the nukes that got Japan to capitulate.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> I also wish they'd stop using "We know the Axis would have done it, but the Allies should have been better than that".


Why would you wish that? We should be better than dropping Nukes on civillians. I'm embarassed to be a Canadain when I read such comments.


> Hiroshima signalled a failure of humankind, not just that of America. The growth of technology has far outstripped our ability to use it wisely. Like a quarrelling group of monkeys on a leaky boat, armed with sticks of dynamite, we are now embarked on an uncertain journey.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

On a side note, although I certainly am not arguing that the bombs should have been dropped, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did provide one benefit to the world. It showed everyone how truly horrible nuclear weapons are. I don't think that the scientists and military involved in developing them even knew how awful it was going to be.

Possibly it prevented their use later, once the arms race had begun and the bombs were far more powerful, because people everywhere, even many hawks, knew that dropping those bombs on people again was the beginning of a doomsday scenario.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki have remained as a symbol to the world about why nuclear war cannot be contemplated. Hopefully people never forget that, so that maybe some good can come out of all those deaths.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> On a side note, although I certainly am not arguing that the bombs should have been dropped, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did provide one benefit to the world. It showed everyone how truly horrible nuclear weapons are. I don't think that the scientists and military involved in developing them even knew how awful it was going to be.
> 
> Possibly it prevented their use later, once the arms race had begun and the bombs were far more powerful, because people everywhere, even many hawks, knew that dropping those bombs on people again was the beginning of a doomsday scenario.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki have remained as a symbol to the world about why nuclear war cannot be contemplated. Hopefully people never forget that, so that maybe some good can come out of all those deaths.


ummm, i don't think so
to quote Robert McNamara, sec. of defence, USA during Cuban missile crisis and start of Vietnam war from *The Fog of War*

_How did we avoid nuclear conflict? It was sheer luck !!"_
- he may have used a different word that "conflict" but it was in the same vein
- emphasis his

so, in his opinion it was luck and not "learning from history" that saved the world from nuclear holocaust

so much for learning from the deaths of others

politicians rarely get their hands dirty and so can wax poetic about their decisions invoking as much crap as their speech writers can muster

seems easy to order "others" to die


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I think they knew quite well how "awful" it was going to be. Have you ever seen the footage showing the animals they experimented on beforehand? If it'll peel the skin off a goat I would think it would do the same to a human being.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

martman said:


> Why would you wish that? We should be better than dropping Nukes on civillians. I'm embarassed to be a Canadain when I read such comments.


Drop the histrionics. 

I'm embarrassed to be a Canadian when I read such comments that state one can't have an (albeit unpopular) opinion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by martman
> Why would you wish that? We should be better than dropping Nukes on civillians. I'm embarassed to be a Canadain when I read such comments.
> 
> ...


Umm, mabye it's just me, but which part indicates *one can't have an (albeit) unpopular opinion?*

histrionics? puh-lease.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

martman said:


> Why would you wish that? We should be better than dropping Nukes on civillians. I'm embarassed to be a Canadain when I read such comments.



It is well established that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very much military targets.

Obviously, the civilian deaths were horrible. The whole act was horrible. What every side did was horrible. But as unlikely as it seems now, what do you think would have happened to civilians if Japan or Germany had won? Certainly, what happened to German and Japanese people after the war, at the hands of the Allies, is a very different thing than what would have happened if the Germans, Japanese, Italians, would have won. If you'd prefer the fascist lifestyle, there are lots of places you can travel right now.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> If you'd prefer the fascist lifestyle, there are lots of places you can travel right now.


Anyone?


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

HowEver said:


> ... If you'd prefer the fascist lifestyle, there are lots of places you can travel right now.


Right! A hop, skip and jump south of us - "crossing the line" - plenty of choice.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I was trying to merely lurk in this thread, but I can't keep silent anymore.



HowEver said:


> It is well established that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very much military targets.


I have to agree here.

Here's some relevent stuff I posted in another thread. Rather than re-write another treatise I thought I would just recycle myself. 


The question whether an air strike is a terrorist act or not is determined by the target. If it is a material resource of the nation's military, then it is perfectly acceptable. This can include, for example, a munitions plant - even if civilians are employed there.

On the other hand, if a target has no military value whatsoever and the aim is merely to "demoralize," then it's terrorism.

All military acts create fear and death, irrelevent of the target. But if fear and death is the only objective, then it is terrorism.

This is apparently what pamphlets, dropped on Japan after the first bombing, said to encourage unconditional surrender:



Wikipedia said:


> TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
> Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.
> You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...ma_and_Nagasaki

Note the statement "Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military...." 



Wikipedia said:


> Hiroshima during World War II
> At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.


None of this defends the bombing as necessary, however. Arguing that they were justified if they bombed Hiroshima is not the same as arguing that they should.

And I will say now that I do not know whether it was right or wrong. I have a great deal of research and reflection to do before I choose. If I choose.

I am not much of a fan of Wikipedia, but this is a great article on the atomic bombings. Especially good is the pro- and con- section on whether it was justified. Give it a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...ma_and_Nagasaki


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Obviously, the civilian deaths were horrible. The whole act was horrible. What every side did was horrible. But as unlikely as it seems now, what do you think would have happened to civilians if Japan or Germany had won? Certainly, what happened to German and Japanese people after the war, at the hands of the Allies, is a very different thing than what would have happened if the Germans, Japanese, Italians, would have won. If you'd prefer the fascist lifestyle, there are lots of places you can travel right now.


I think this type of "ends justifies the means" argument doesn't help. It just strengthens the position of the peace-mongers.



LGBaker said:


> Right! A hop, skip and jump south of us - "crossing the line" - plenty of choice.


You will never win anyone over with that kind of nonsense. Abusing important political terms diminishes their effectiveness, and the effectiveness of the political process. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

Give George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" a read. He makes a very convincing argument that corruption of language is both a contributor to political corruption, as well as a result of it.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Obviously lpk isn't going as far as I am in saying I would have made the same decision as Truman. 

But I did want to say he made very good point about the justification.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It was hardly a unique approach





















> Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. In total there were 222,000 apartments in the city. 75,000 of them were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, 81,000 slightly damaged. The city was around 300 square kilometres in area in those days. Although the main railway station was destroyed completely, the railway was working again within a few days.


BTW while Dresden did have extensive factories for the war effort *most were in the outskirts*



> Overall, Anglo-American bombing of German cities claimed ca. 400,000 civilian lives, nine times the 43,000 British civilians killed in German raids


Tokyo was also incinerated with fire bombing with a loss of 100,000 lives.

My point here is not to lay blame or point fingers but to show the attack, whether nuclear or incendiary, was in keeping entirely with strategic bombing conduct by the Allies.

MacSpectrum it's neither more nor less than other acts.....of war or terror that were part of the Allied bombing campaign so singling it out is in my view incorrect. Different weapon, same results.

Rwandans used machetes killing some 800,000 out of population of 7 million.
How devastating was smallpox infected blankets, plague ridden bodies tossed by catapult in other war theatres.

The Mongols murdered every single person in the City of Merv.........a population of over 1 million at a time when the total WORLD population was 300 million or so and wiped out 30% of the entire Chinese population of the time....millions more dead.

The list of horrors one group of our species has inflicted on another is enormous and seemingly endless so pointing to Hiroshima as the "single most".......it's not even close in percentage, total numbers or horrible death. Just one more in the pantheon 

We have been and are a destructive ape. Too bad the bonobos didn't quite make the leap.
A much saner method of conflict resolution.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> It is well established that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very much military targets.
> 
> Obviously, the civilian deaths were horrible. The whole act was horrible. What every side did was horrible. But as unlikely as it seems now, what do you think would have happened to civilians if Japan or Germany had won? Certainly, what happened to German and Japanese people after the war, at the hands of the Allies, is a very different thing than what would have happened if the Germans, Japanese, Italians, would have won. If you'd prefer the fascist lifestyle, there are lots of places you can travel right now.


The only problem with this argument is that there was no possibility that Japan was going to win by this point in the war. Germany and Italy were already out. There was no need to do this. Even the excuse about the ground war should the US have to invade has now been shown to be a fabrication as Japan had been trying since April to negotiate a surrender with conditions, which the allies wouldn't accept.

It seems Hiroshima & Nagasaki were really about two things:
1) scientific experimentation: The effects of nukes on humans (wich was detailed in coulour by film crews working with the US millitairy) 
2) telling Russia to not invade Japan


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

Okay after all this "talk" could we please have someone respond who was actually alive back then! By the looks of things I suggest you talk to your great-grand parents  .See if you can get them to tell it like it was.Fear is a great motivator in war, ask anyone who has actually been in combat,ask the civilian who was left behind to fear for their sons safe return. This is the hard thing to translate to people in this age. I'm all for learning,but try for a second to put yourself in Trumans shoes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Being alive then is of no great consequence as you would need to be very very high up in the Allied or Japanese Command to make any contribution of insight.

You are very correct in attempting to empathize with Truman and inexperienced habadasher from Missouri thrust onto the world stage with the likes of Churchill and Stalin and having to fill the shoes of FDR !!! 

He did not even KNOW of the Manhattan project as Vice President under FDR and had been very limited by the secretive FDR.
He found out about the atomic effort in April and was confronted by the question in July amongst all the other monumental tasks involved in taking over from FDR.

Yes it was a devastating weapon but so was fire bombing and let's face it only the Trinity people really had a grasp of the power.
It put the power of a fleet of bombers into a single plane but the effects of radiation etc were mostly unknown ( as later lawsuits by Trinity observers would show ).

The one thing that cannot be argued is that it did end the war abruptly.

It was Truman's actions after the war in rebuilding and remaking Japan along with the acceptance of the Japanese populace of the need for change that truly was earth changing in a geo-politcal sense.

I still maintain that nations especially empires have a psyche and that only a devastation can change a war like psyche to one dedicated to peace.
The only empire not to have suffered that in modern times is the US tho it came close with Vietnam and Iraq may yet finally bring that about.

It took ALL of Europe both "winners" and "losers" to reach beyond national borders in an ongoing experiment called the EU.

The use of the atomic weapon ended the war very quickly.
The use of a second weapon was considered needed to demonstrate is was neither fluke of some conditions that lead to the destruction nor a one off device.

There were only two deliverable weapons and there was no guarantee even this would bring about surrender so arguing the second weapon could be exploded in an unpopulated area will not wash. In war weapons are for use not demonstration.

Had Japan sued for peace prior to the second weapon.....different story. They had not.
Once more remember few outside the Trinity crowd and obviously no one in Japan really understood the nature of the atomic bomb.
Even AFTER the second bomb the government would not surrender and only the completely untraditional interference by the Emperor swung the surrender.



> No Surrender
> 
> Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender.
> 
> ...


http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm


Once more.....it did end the war, a second bomb clearly was needed and even that plus the declaration of war by Russia barely ended the war and it even then required the Emperor to exert all his "divine wishes" to bring the government to the surrender table.



> Or as War Minister Anami said after he agreed to surrender, "As a Japanese soldier, I must obey my Emperor" (Pacific War Research Society, JLD, pg. 87-88).
> 
> *Surrender was so repugnant to Anami that he committed hara-kiri the day after he signed the surrender document*


Fanatical indeed 



> *On the following day, August 14, Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda were still arguing that there was a chance for victory * (John Toland, The Rising Sun, pg. 936). But then that same day, the Cabinet unanimously agreed to surrender (Toland, pg. 939). Where none of the previous events had succeeded in bringing the Japanese military leaders to surrender, surrender came at Emperor Hirohito's request: "It is my desire that you, my Ministers of State, accede to my wishes and forthwith accept the Allied reply" (Butow, pg. 207-208).


I'm not sure how much clearer it can be that the Japanese government was willing to continue the war despite BOTH bombs and Russian engagement and it was only by the narrowest of margins that it did NOT continue.

Truman's efforts after the war I think shows clearly the nature of his thinking both before the bomb was used and the manner in which to deal with a defeated enemy in order to win the peace which in the case of BOTH Germany and Japan...he did.

Personally I think no other course of action would have ended the war quickly.

If anything it's a cautionary lesson in the power of religious belief going beyond reason to harm an entire people.
The initial strategy by Yamamoto was to cripple the US fleet in Pearl Harbour and the sue quickly for peace to firmly establish their new empire without threat from the US.

Had they done so the US may well have accepted. We'll never know.....his strategy was abandoned by fanatics in the Japanese war party believing themselves leaders of a divine race destined to rule.

Hubris indeed.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MacDoc, 

We don't see eye to eye in this part of the forum often, but I have to say, that was one damn fine post.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I have to dissagree MacDoc. The information out now shows clearly that Japan DID sue for peace. They were trying to negotiate a peace since April of 1945 with serious efforts all through the month of July. 
The information available now (thanks to declasification of documents in Russia and USA) makes this very clear. I know people don't like to let go of previously held notions but the fact remains that Japan had been looking for a way out for months before the bombs were dropped. The idea of preventing deaths from a land invasion was pure propaganda. The US didn't want people to think about the ethics of this action that is why If You Love This Planet was banned in the US.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Of course there was an attempt by ONE faction of the government. That faction had a voice throughout the war.

The Cabinet vote for peace was 12 to 3 FOR PEACE but the only way peace could be achieved was by UNANIMOUS cabinet agreement and the peace initiatives contemplated keeping much of their empire.....hardly something to swallow by the Allies.

You make these grand statements but you provide zero backup.
Many of the comments in those articles I quoted come from the Japanese themselves.
I'm quite willing to entertain alternate viewpoints but not on some documents you claim exist but show no proof of.

Tolands Rising Sun was a breakthrough in showing how the war should not have taken place and for the first time a the time had the Japanese documents to work with.
Hirohito's Bio also provides deep insight into the role of the Emperor.

I've seen nothing that indicates any substantive change in the information which was very different than that promulgated just after the war.
The release of the Magic/Ultra info circa 1989 truly rewrote the war in both theatres and in depth books on the Japanese view have been very useful to provide balance.

Based on this information I draw MY conclusions.......you are quite welcome to draw a different conclusion but waving "NEW INFO JUST RELEASED" sounds more tabloid sensationalism than of historical significance.

Let's see your "new info".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Let's see your "new info".


There is much information available these days about this issue some old some new but much of it showing that Japan was not likely to force an invasion.
Note president Eisenhower's comment in 1963 and fleet admiral Leahey's (no Trailer Park Boys jokes please!  ) comments as well.
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm


> Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation. The cabinet, made up of elder statesmen, tried to send out peace feelers through neutral Sweden, Soviet Union, and Switzerland as early as June 1945. The only condition was the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. Unwilling or unclear of the Japanese offer, the Allies refused and issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26th.
> 
> The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs





> When Eisenhower was told of the bomb he said: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63





> "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 almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
> 
> ---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
> Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II





> The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946:
> 
> "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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."





> Why did Truman drop the bomb? The best explanation is a quote by Truman and the thinking of his Secretary of State Byrnes. Brynes view was that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make the Soviets more "managable" in Europe. Truman said, "If this explodes as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." indicating the Russians - ch 19 page 239 of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, NY:Knopf, 1995


new info here:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/shop.php?mode=Books&item=0674016939

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7158.shtml


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where is the NEW information?? You are quoting very old information and officers in the US who may have disagreed with the decision *at the time* ( there was of course dissent in the US circles and at Trinity including Einstein ) and had no clue about the extent of the Ultra information at the time which was not released until the late 80s.

There is no way that just after the war the issues within the Japanese government could be revealed in detail nor could the Ultra information be accessed for historical work.

Japan was NOT Germany. If anyone is relying on "old information" it's you.
Without the full extent of the intelligence available ( only to a very small circle in 1945/46) and the access and analysis of the Japanese accounts after the rebuilding and "time had passed" could a reasonably complete picture be drawn.

And as I said - based on that picture both within and outside Japan knowing what Truman was privy to via Ultra/Magic ( the Russians were in the dark as well whichis why the Ultra secret was maintained ) I think his decision a correct one *in the circumstances*

Do you think the carpet bombing would have ceased - or the island by island invasions?? That the war would go into some "stasis" while the Japanese decided.
Thousands were dying daily.
Remember a fundamental policy was "unconditional surrender" - that's not the approach the Japanese would look for in a "negotiated" peace process.

By all means argue with that policy as being too inflexible but given that policy was a prime directive for the Allies the use of a new weapon was eminently correct.
At the time radiation issues were secondary to TNT equivalency - it simply meant ONE plane could do what it took hundreds to accomplish with conventional weapons.

The results in the mind of the military were the same.

Mounting an assault on mainland Japan to secure unconditional surrender would have resulted in enormous casualties.

The use of the bomb ended the war and subsequent actions by the Allies helped transform Japanese society from the ground up into a peacable kingdom based on a very different set of beliefs.

As I said - argue with the unconditional surrender tenent - that's very valid but reality points out

• quick end to the war
• unconditional surrender achieved
• little loss of Allied troops
• a "sea change" in the _war is honourable_ aspect of Japanese society

By those standards it was undeniably a resounding success.
You may indeed argue with the standards set but I suggest you cannot argue with the success.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Where is the NEW information?? .....
> You may indeed argue with the standards set but I suggest you cannot argue with the success.


You continue to ignore Hasegawa and his studies of the actual Stalin era documents.

I find it incredible to sugest Ike was ignorant of the facts.




> Hasegawa said many Japanese leaders wanted to end the war in July, but Hirohito's hopes of gaining a mediated settlement that would leave him in power delayed the surrender for a month


This implies that Japan wanted to surrender. To sugest that because the initial terms Japan was looking for was not up to the standards of the allies, that the atomic bombing was justified seems to be very shortsighted IMNSHO.



> University of Pittsburgh historian Donald Goldstein, author of several books on the war in the Pacific, agreed that the Soviet documents provide "a new slant" on Stalin's involvement that had been withheld from the public for decades.
> 
> Goldstein said it's clear that Japan was fatally crippled by the summer of 1945. Japanese diplomats began trying to find a way to bring the war to an end by April, looking for a deal that would keep the country's emperor system intact. By the summer, Japanese leaders knew the allies intended to bring the Nazis to trial for war crimes and feared the same would happen to them and Hirohito.
> 
> "They were trying to get the best deal, but the word came back, no deal," Goldstein said.


Given that there was already an effort to gain peace I see no justification in nuking Japan. I don't see how this could be justifed as nessecary.


While I can't point you to the actual documents, their contents are not totally secret:


> Western historians first obtained once-closed Soviet archives during the period of perestroika in the 1990s, when Russian reformers made Stalin's papers available for the first time. Russian President Vladimir Putin has since closed many of the archives to Western researchers, but Russian historians recently were allowed again to see the papers.




Yes I suppose it was a success but I don't view the killing of hundreds of thousands a "success", I view it as an atrocity. I do not buy the argument that demonstrating the effects of an a-bomb would not have had an effect on the Japanese Emperor nor do I buy the argument that it would have been a mistake to try. If one bomb was demonstrated that would still have left one for "actual use" on a populated target.
I add that people born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still being effected by the residual radiation of these weapons. I think that a greater crime against humanity has never been commited. (although using Sarin on populated areas of Iraq (by both Iraq and Iran) does come close)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I think that a greater * single* crime against humanity has never been commited.


agreed


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So killing 100,00 in Tokyo with conventional bombing was somehow DIFFERENT than using an atomic weapon?? 

If so then we will have to agree to disagree. 

The Soviets did NOT have the intelligence insight the US and Britain had so their take is interesting at best but certainly not critical enough to change the overall view of things that Japan was not prepared to surrender unconditionally and the cabinet discussions after the bombs shows that clearly.

ONLY Hirohito's unprecedented interference brought it about.
The decisions by the hawks in the Japanese cabinet from Pearl Harbour on is where guilt for the destruction of Japanse cities *by whatever means* lays.

The inability of the Cabinet to surrender without unanimous support of all ministers is a flaw in the structure of the government that allowed a few fanatics to overcome the voices for surrender.

••••

Macspectrum you have trotted out that "single greatest crime" comment several times without a shred of backup saying why it is so different than say Merv, or Dresden etc.
My clear suspicion is it's soley because it's the US "crime".

I would dare say the massacre at Nanking represents a far greater "crime".



> Witness accounts from the period state that over the course of six weeks following the fall of Nanking, Japanese troops engaged in an orgy of rape, murder, theft, and arson. The site of some of the most gruesome atrocities committed during the ordeal was the Nanking hospital. Bandages were torn from the flesh of the wounded, casts were smashed with clubs, and nurses were repeatedly raped.
> [edit]
> Rape
> Historians estimate that 20,000 (and sometimes up to 80,000) women from as young as seven to the elderly were raped. According to historians, rapes were often performed in public during the day, and often in front of spouses or family members. It is believed that rape was systematized in a process where soldiers would search door to door for young girls. It is said as well that many women were taken captive to be gang-raped, and some were kept to be raped again. It is believed that it was common for a woman to be killed immediately after being raped, usually by mutilation. According to testimony, some women were forced into military prostitution as comfort women. It is even believed that the Japanese troops often forced families to commit acts of incest: sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape daughters. Monks who had declared a life of celibacy were forced to rape women for the amusement of the Japanese. Instances of Chinese men forced to rape corpses were not uncommon during the occupation. While the rape peaked immediately following the fall of the city, it continued for the duration of the Japanese occupation.
> ...


What does it matter six weeks or six picoseconds when 100,00 die. 

In terms of purposeful horror of human against helpless human.........Nanking easily tips the scale as a great crime against humanity - Hiroshima is a magnitude less in my view.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> agreed


I would disagree with that emphatically. I think there are Jewish and Rwandan people that would disagree with that.

Also, while researching this topic last night, I came across documentation that the Allies had estimated that the blockade (already in place) would have starved 10 million Japanese to death. I apologize for not supporting with a link, I'll keep looking.

I'm split on the use of the bomb in this case. What I do know is that none have been used since. Hopefully from the lesson learned.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

300,000+ dead in 2 days ranks as #1 for me
and I include the 7-11 millioin Ukrainians that died during the Holodymor (Forced Famine)

i guess everyone missed the "single" part of my statement

Truman should be remembered as a war criminal

how ANYONE can justify mass murder on this scale is beyond me


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No I did not miss "single" and it's a specious distinction.

If you claim Truman as a war criminal for Hiroshima then you must also indite for Dresden and Tokyo and any other numbers of acts of war.......why not the abandoning of the men of the Indianapolis to th sharks, or the failure ot react to the warnings proceeding Pearl harbour. The list goes on and on to what point........that humans undertake despicableacts on many scales including in the millions........nothing new there.

You're on exceedingly shakey ground in my mind making arbitrary claim about Hiroshima.

What about the failure of the the US stop development of hydrogen weapons triggering the arms race.

There are many crimes small and massive and some eyt to be determined "crimes".

Far better in my mind to spend time on the mechanisms of sustained peace which quite frankly both Germany and Japan have undertaken far better than the US.

POST WWII there were 1.2 BILLION deaths sans a global conflict. Hiroshima is just one event and just marked an advance of weaponry as the machine did before it and the repeating rifle and revolver on back through the Clovis point.

Nothing but hand weaponry at Merv. 1 million dead. 1 city. When the world only contained 300 million.

If you wish Truman's "crime" must be offset by both the results immediately and his actions after in restoring Japan and Germany.

No such offset for Nanking or the Ukraine or Rwanda. THOSE and others are CRIMES writ large.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

People are still being killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this is what makes the crime especially heinious.
It is like a landmine that keeps going off everytime it is steped on...
At least with the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden (which I also think were atrocities) when the bombing and the fires and the imediate aftermath was over people stopped dying.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If you claim Truman as a war criminal for Hiroshima then you must also indite for Dresden and Tokyo and any other numbers of acts of war.......why not the abandoning of the men of the Indianapolis to th sharks, or the failure ot react to the warnings proceeding Pearl harbour. The list goes on and on to what point........that humans undertake despicableacts on many scales including in the millions........nothing new there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) I do think Dresden and Tokyo were both unnessecary and primiarily directed at civillians, therefore war crimes.
I can't blame Truman for failing to act on Pearl Harbour because he wasn't president at the time.

2)agreed

3)Atomic weaponry are not just a simple advancement in technology. With weapons this powerful the stakes are much higher.

4)I don't buy the benevolant butcher theory. I don't see how you can mitigate the death of 300,000 + people in 2 days plus a radioactive legacy that is still killing the people of these two cites today with an unusually enlightened and admittely successful occupation policy (the Marshal Plan).



ceremony in Hiroshima 2005 said:


> The ceremony began with the addition to the cenotaph of the names of the 5,375 people who died in the past year. The total now stands at 242,437.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

War crimes can't apply retroactively to a time when the law and concepts of "war crimes" did not exist.

There did exist though a concept of "crimes against humanity" for which, for example, surviving Nazis were charged, and convicted.

You also cannot apply war crimes charges to countries that don't respect international bodies like the world court, like the United States.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martman it's called lesser of two evils - the Allies had to let Coventry burn with no warning even tho they knew the raid was coming. Is that also a "war crime"??

You conveniently don't state whether you think the killing and bombing would have stopped while the Japanese dickered over terms.
It would not have.

You set these arbitrary standards for a global war - this is okay to bomb, that's not.
In Truman's position with what he knew and the choice he had of trying to stop the Pacific war quickly by using anew weapon.......there is no question in my mind that he made an effective choice over letting the war drag on.

No question it was a gamble, they did not know if the bomb would work or the effect on the Japanese and patently it required two bombs and even then it was a narrow victory of peace over continued war.
If they needed a third.......they could not have done it.


----------

