David McCullough, rest in shame

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bob,

     If you haven't read the book, or watched the series, Oliver Stone's chapter on Truman and the Bomb in The Untold History of the United States is worth studying-- and I say that as a guy whose uncle was killed on the U.S.S. Lexington in the Pacific theater in WWII.

     Before reading The Untold History, I didn't realize that Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz, and even Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay all disapproved of Truman's decision to drop the Bomb on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, believing that was morally wrong and unnecessary from a military standpoint.

     Here's a discussion of that history with Peter Kuznick.

 

 

     

I haven't read the book but have watched the series. The justification of dropping the bomb on civilians is a separate issue from the idea that an invasion would have cost 47,000 lives. That's idiotic.

That number of fatalities is a small fraction of what probably would have occurred had the allies mounted an invasion of the main islands. It brings into question all the assumptions that the post-event "experts" have drawn up for their conclusions. The fact that Russia had a few million troops on the fringes of the Islands and bordering Manchuria and the possible necessity of retaking Singapore had Japan decided to fight it out doesn't appear to be accounted for either.

LeMay second guessing Truman is rich considering his intentional fire-bombing of population centers in Europe and Japan lead to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent deaths dwarfing the casualties of the nukes in both cities combined.

While he was alive, had I been a little more inquisitive, I could have asked my grandfather what their assessment of communications between high ranking IJN officers could have been regarding the likelihood Japan would have surrendered after Germany's collapse. I know the US was also very concerned with Stalin and Mao's designs on Asia and Japan while the US and UK were busy making invasion plans. Neither Stalin or Mao would have sat by idly while a combined American/Allied assault chewed up resources trying to squelch a Japanese defense of the Islands and insurgency. After all, Stalin showed he was quite capable of entering into agreements with Hitler for larger geo-political purposes, why not Japan?

Just speculation but I'm sure these were issues Truman had to consider. Better him than me.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I haven't read the book but have watched the series. The justification of dropping the bomb on civilians is a separate issue from the idea that an invasion would have cost 47,000 lives. That's idiotic.

That number of fatalities is a small fraction of what probably would have occurred had the allies mounted an invasion of the main islands. It brings into question all the assumptions that the post-event "experts" have drawn up for their conclusions. The fact that Russia had a few million troops on the fringes of the Islands and bordering Manchuria and the possible necessity of retaking Singapore had Japan decided to fight it out doesn't appear to be accounted for either.

LeMay second guessing Truman is rich considering his intentional fire-bombing of population centers in Europe and Japan lead to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent deaths dwarfing the casualties of the nukes in both cities combined.

While he was alive, had I been a little more inquisitive, I could have asked my grandfather what their assessment of communications between high ranking IJN officers could have been regarding the likelihood Japan would have surrendered after Germany's collapse. I know the US was also very concerned with Stalin and Mao's designs on Asia and Japan while the US and UK were busy making invasion plans. Neither Stalin or Mao would have sat by idly while a combined American/Allied assault chewed up resources trying to squelch a Japanese defense of the Islands and insurgency. After all, Stalin showed he was quite capable of entering into agreements with Hitler for larger geo-political purposes, why not Japan?

Just speculation but I'm sure these were issues Truman had to consider. Better him than me.

The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb (google.com)

[Pat Speer]

19 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I haven't read the book but have watched the series. The justification of dropping the bomb on civilians is a separate issue from the idea that an invasion would have cost 47,000 lives. That's idiotic.

That number of fatalities is a small fraction of what probably would have occurred had the allies mounted an invasion of the main islands. It brings into question all the assumptions that the post-event "experts" have drawn up for their conclusions. The fact that Russia had a few million troops on the fringes of the Islands and bordering Manchuria and the possible necessity of retaking Singapore had Japan decided to fight it out doesn't appear to be accounted for either.

LeMay second guessing Truman is rich considering his intentional fire-bombing of population centers in Europe and Japan lead to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent deaths dwarfing the casualties of the nukes in both cities combined.

While he was alive, had I been a little more inquisitive, I could have asked my grandfather what their assessment of communications between high ranking IJN officers could have been regarding the likelihood Japan would have surrendered after Germany's collapse. I know the US was also very concerned with Stalin and Mao's designs on Asia and Japan while the US and UK were busy making invasion plans. Neither Stalin or Mao would have sat by idly while a combined American/Allied assault chewed up resources trying to squelch a Japanese defense of the Islands and insurgency. After all, Stalin showed he was quite capable of entering into agreements with Hitler for larger geo-political purposes, why not Japan?

Just speculation but I'm sure these were issues Truman had to consider. Better him than me.

It's been awhile, but I looked into this a bit at one point. (I'm pretty sure one of my sources was Gore Vidal.) In any event, there is a parallel with the decision to drop the bomb and the decision to create the Warren Commission, in that in both instances, the American public was lied to about why these decisions were made. 

The story on the bomb decision was that Truman had to drop the bomb to end the war, because an invasion would have been too costly. This was repeated ad nauseam. But it wasn't true. The dam broke in the 60's, when some, including Allen Dulles, of all people, admitted that the Japanese had been negotiating their surrender for months. So the war could have ended without an invasion.

But the problem was this. The American people were angry as heck that they got dragged into a bloody war by a "yellow peril" and wanted Japan's complete surrender--that is, a surrender of its autonomy like what happened in Germany. And the Japanese were not willing to offer as much. They would pull back their troops, return occupied territories, downsize their military and cease hostilities. But they were not gonna let America come in and rebuild them as a western-styled democracy. 

There were still other factors that led to Hiroshima, as I recall. One was that the U.S. only had two functional bombs at the time and didn't want to "waste" one by dropping it on an un-inhabitated atoll or some such thing, in an effort to scare the Japanese into submission. This may have done the trick, but they knew the American public wanted blood. They also knew, from the mass suicides in Okinawa, that the Japanese public was all-set to die for their cause. So the thinking was that a mass casualty event was needed to shock them out of their fervor and appease American blood-lust.

And then there were the Russians. With the end of the war in Germany, America and the Brits realized that Russia was now their biggest problem. They wanted to end the war before Russia could invade Japan from the north. America had pressed the Russians to help it defeat Japan but now realized that that was a mistake, as Russia would be unlikely to surrender any conquered lands. Some felt the bombs should be dropped to send a message to Russia that the war was over and that there was a new big dog in the Pacific. And the world. 

So there were a number of factors involved. Was dropping the bomb justified? It all comes down to ethics. Is the brutal murder of hundred of thousands of people justified if this murder might save even more lives in the long run? 

It depends on the strength of the "might". Right? So it's a bit of a Rorschach test. America both killed a lot to save even more AND killed a lot to extend its empire. Both are true, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Andrews]

On 8/8/2022 at 6:55 PM, Joseph McBride said:

The late David McCullough was a Skull & Bones member who practiced deceit in his books on Adams and Truman. A rather shameful figure. McCullough justified Truman's dropping of the two atomic bombs and distorted history to do so, as well as ignoring recent scholarship on why the bombs were not necessary in ending the war. He also was the keynote speaker at Dallas's 50th anniversary commemoration of the JFK assassination -- behind police lines, holding back dissidents, including me -- and never mentioned the assassination. He just gave a dull, anodyne recital of some of JFK's famous quotes. McCullough was a thoroughly establishment figure whose eminence came from his willingness to prop up America's official mythology.

https://hnn.us/articles/157.html

http://mobylives.com/Nobile_Pulitzer_speech.html

 

 

What's the beef with the Adams book?  Slavery?

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's been awhile, but I looked into this a bit at one point. (I'm pretty sure one of my sources was Gore Vidal.) In any event, there is a parallel with the decision to drop the bomb and the decision to create the Warren Commission, in that in both instances, the American public was lied to about why these decisions were made. 

The story on the bomb decision was that Truman had to drop the bomb to end the war, because an invasion would have been too costly. This was repeated ad nauseam. But it wasn't true. The dam broke in the 60's, when some, including Allen Dulles, of all people, admitted that the Japanese had been negotiating their surrender for months. So the war could have ended without an invasion.

But the problem was this. The American people were angry as heck that they got dragged into a bloody war by a "yellow peril" and wanted Japan's complete surrender--that is, a surrender of its autonomy like what happened in Germany. And the Japanese were not willing to offer as much. They would pull back their troops, return occupied territories, downsize their military and cease hostilities. But they were not gonna let America come in and rebuild them as a western-styled democracy. 

There were still other factors that led to Hiroshima, as I recall. One was that the U.S. only had two functional bombs at the time and didn't want to "waste" one by dropping it on an un-inhabitated atoll or some such thing, in an effort to scare the Japanese into submission. This may have done the trick, but they knew the American public wanted blood. They also knew, from the mass suicides in Okinawa, that the Japanese public was all-set to die for their cause. So the thinking was that a mass casualty event was needed to shock them out of their fervor and appease American blood-lust.

And then there were the Russians. With the end of the war in Germany, America and the Brits realized that Russia was now their biggest problem. They wanted to end the war before Russia could invade Japan from the north. America had pressed the Russians to help it defeat Japan but now realized that that was a mistake, as Russia would be unlikely to surrender any conquered lands. Some felt the bombs should be dropped to send a message to Russia that the war was over and that there was a new big dog in the Pacific. And the world. 

So there were a number of factors involved. Was dropping the bomb justified? It all comes down to ethics. Is the brutal murder of hundred of thousands of people justified if this murder might save even more lives in the long run? 

It depends on the strength of the "might". Right? So it's a bit of a Rorschach test. America both killed a lot to save even more AND killed a lot to extend its empire. Both are true, IMO. 

Thoughtful response. Yeah, they didn't have a factory for nukes going either. At that point in the war mass casualty events were just part of the scenery unfortunately so I don't know how that would have factored into the decision. By then they were getting a full picture of the holocaust and remember the POW camps and population detainee centers throughout the east were without any basic necessities and suffering from starvation and disease. Those numbers were not inconsequential, and the remaining Japanese troops were slaughtering people as well and had been since Nanking or before. In today's PC world they have been forgotten of course.

The brutality of the Japanese in the name of the emperor was factored in also. Would the Allies accept a partial surrender from a man now known to have systematically murdered 6 million jews in factories designed to do so? They let Hirohito remain which seems to me to be a major concession and I don't know whether I would agree to that. He would have been the first against the wall as far as I'm concerned.

My response was from a post of Jim D's stating (I don't think these are his numbers- War Department is cited) 46,000 casualties/fatalities (?) as the result of an invasion of the main islands which is ridiculous, and casts doubt on any other assumptions and conclusions made. I don't know if you read my earlier post but apparently they are still giving Purple Hearts to soldiers that were intended to be used during the invasion of Japan, TODAY.

I would tend to take at face value Truman's explanation of the decision rather than build a fence of second-guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks who have political reasons for making themselves look holier-than-thou. Ike? LeMay? MacArthur? Why would they criticize the decision post-facto or even advise him not to prior to the drop? Because they get a tails we win, heads you lose, proposition. Truman's on an Island by himself - it's his call. Either way they get to instruct all on how wrong Truman was by slaughtering innocents by using the nukes (which would have happened during an invasion also) or refusing to checkmate Japan submitting us all to yet more war and deaths from an invasion.

Like I said, better him than me.

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Thoughtful response. Yeah, they didn't have a factory for nukes going either. At that point in the war mass casualty events were just part of the scenery unfortunately so I don't know how that would have factored into the decision. By then they were getting a full picture of the holocaust and remember the POW camps and population detainee centers throughout the east were without any basic necessities and suffering from starvation and disease. Those numbers were not inconsequential, and the remaining Japanese troops were slaughtering people as well and had been since Nanking or before. In today's PC world they have been forgotten of course.

The brutality of the Japanese in the name of the emperor was factored in also. Would the Allies accept a partial surrender from a man now known to have systematically murdered 6 million jews in factories designed to do so? They let Hirohito remain which seems to me to be a major concession and I don't know whether I would agree to that. He would have been the first against the wall as far as I'm concerned.

My response was from a post of Jim D's stating (I don't think these are his numbers- War Department is cited) 46,000 casualties/fatalities (?) as the result of an invasion of the main islands which is ridiculous, and casts doubt on any other assumptions and conclusions made. I don't know if you read my earlier post but apparently they are still giving Purple Hearts to soldiers that were intended to be used during the invasion of Japan, TODAY.

I would tend to take at face value Truman's explanation of the decision rather than build a fence of second-guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks who have political reasons for making themselves look holier-than-thou. Ike? LeMay? MacArthur? Why would they criticize the decision post-facto or even advise him not to prior to the drop? Because they get a tails we win, heads you lose, proposition. Truman's on an Island by himself - it's his call. Either way they get to instruct all on how wrong Truman was by slaughtering innocents by using the nukes (which would have happened during an invasion also) or refusing to checkmate Japan submitting us all to yet more war and deaths from an invasion.

Like I said, better him than me.

A few points, which I document on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

* Truman knew by no later than July that Japan was willing to surrender if only the U.S. would stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed. By no later than several days before he ordered Hiroshima nuked, Truman also knew that emperor himself supported this position.

* Yes, the Japanese military was vicious and cruel and had committed horrendous atrocities, but this was no excuse for nuking a civilian target such as Hiroshima. There was a Japanese army HQ garrison on the outskirts of Hiroshima, but the garrison constituted a small percentage of the city's population. By no rational measurement was Hiroshima a "military target." 

* The evidence is clear that it was Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs, that caused Japan to surrender. Specifically, the Soviet entry into the war was the event that enabled the Japanese moderates to maneuver the militarists into being ordered to surrender by the emperor in two imperial conferences. The militarists could not have cared less about the destruction of another city or two, regardless of the means. In fact, after Hiroshima, the militarists would not even agree to convene the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. But, when they learned of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, they hastily agreed to convene the council. 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

A few points, which I document on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

* Truman knew by no later than July that Japan was willing to surrender if only the U.S. would stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed. By no later than several days before he ordered Hiroshima nuked, Truman also knew that emperor himself supported this position.

* Yes, the Japanese military was vicious and cruel and had committed horrendous atrocities, but this was no excuse for nuking a civilian target such as Hiroshima. There was a Japanese army HQ garrison on the outskirts of Hiroshima, but the garrison constituted a small percentage of the city's population. By no rational measurement was Hiroshima a "military target." 

* The evidence is clear that it was Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs, that caused Japan to surrender. Specifically, the Soviet entry into the war was the event that enabled the Japanese moderates to maneuver the militarists into being ordered to surrender by the emperor in two imperial conferences. The militarists could not have cared less about the destruction of another city or two, regardless of the means. In fact, after Hiroshima, the militarists would not even agree to convene the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. But, when they learned of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, they hastily agreed to convene the council. 

Since you seem to have been reading up on this lately, Michael, perhaps you have a quick answer to something that is now a bit foggy with me. I seem to remember that there was a faction within the Japanese military that did not want to surrender even if the U.S. allowed the emperor to continue, and that this faction actually attacked the emperor's guards in an effort to forestall Japan's surrender. Is that correct? Or was this a scene in some bad movie I saw?

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is the best book I ever read on that subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Myths-August-Personal-Exploration-Tragic/dp/0679433643/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2BL7U4O99RTBG&keywords=stewart+udall&qid=1661207163&sprefix=stewart+udall%2Caps%2C336&sr=8-4

A powerful argument that the bomb was unnecessary. Even McCloy said, let them keep the emperor.

After Hull resigned, and FDR died, the hawks led by Byrnes took over and Truman was lost.

As far as the Japanese surrender went, it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria, arranged by FDR, that caused the surrender,  The Russians swept though like a tornado.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is the best book I ever read on that subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Myths-August-Personal-Exploration-Tragic/dp/0679433643/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2BL7U4O99RTBG&keywords=stewart+udall&qid=1661207163&sprefix=stewart+udall%2Caps%2C336&sr=8-4

A powerful argument that the bomb was unnecessary. Even McCloy said, let them keep the emperor.

After Hull resigned, and FDR died, the hawks led by Byrnes took over and Truman was lost.

As far as the Japanese surrender went, it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria, arranged by FDR, that caused the surrender,  The Russians swept though like a tornado.

We dropped the bomb and let them keep their emperor. That wasn't the sticking point that led us to drop the bomb. If I recall correctly, McArthur wanted the emperor to remain in place to assure a peaceful transition to a de-militarized nation, and had meetings with the emperor after the bomb was dropped to assure this came to pass. As I recall, the emperor's unconditional surrender was not appreciated by his military, and there was a coup attempt against him.  

[James DiEugenio]

There was a long argument over this though almost until the end.

When it should have been accepted from the start.

[Bob Ness]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

We dropped the bomb and let them keep their emperor. That wasn't the sticking point that led us to drop the bomb. If I recall correctly, McArthur wanted the emperor to remain in place to assure a peaceful transition to a de-militarized nation, and had meetings with the emperor after the bomb was dropped to assure this came to pass. As I recall, the emperor's unconditional surrender was not appreciated by his military, and there was a coup attempt against him.  

Yes there was a coup attempt to try to keep the surrender from going forward. There was significant lower-level disagreement to the surrender after the bombs were dropped.

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Since you seem to have been reading up on this lately, Michael, perhaps you have a quick answer to something that is now a bit foggy with me. I seem to remember that there was a faction within the Japanese military that did not want to surrender even if the U.S. allowed the emperor to continue, and that this faction actually attacked the emperor's guards in an effort to forestall Japan's surrender. Is that correct? Or was this a scene in some bad movie I saw?

Yes, you are correct that there was a faction of the militarists who were opposed to surrender under any conditions, and those radical militarists were the ones who launched an unsuccessful coup attempt on August 13-15 to try to prevent surrender.

There were two factions among the militarists. One faction consisted of militarists who were diehard, radical fanatics, such as Hatanaka, Shizaki, and Takeshita. The other faction consisted of militarists who were personally opposed to surrender but who were willing to surrender if the emperor himself ordered it. Luckily, the three militarists on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War--Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda--were part of this non-radical faction. They were by no means moderates, but they were not nearly as bad as the likes of Hatanaka and Shizaki.

I think it is interesting and worthwhile to note that Anami, Umezu, and/or Toyoda could have prevented surrender by resigning, especially after the August 9-10 imperial conference (when Hirohito issued his first decision to surrender). If any of them had resigned before the cabinet met to vote on the imperial surrender decision, this would have stopped surrender dead in its tracks because a new government would have had to be formed, which could have taken weeks. If Anami had resigned, the Army could have delayed the formation of a new government for weeks or months by refusing to nominate Anami's replacement. 

Moreover, if even one of the hardliners in the cabinet had voted not to accept the emperor's surrender decision, the decision would have been blocked. In order for imperial decisions to take effect, the cabinet had to ratify them unanimously. It only took one no vote to block an imperial decision. Two of the three militarists on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War were also cabinet members: Generals Anami and Umezu. So, Anami and/or Umezu could have blocked surrender by voting no when the cabinet voted on surrender, but they did not because the emperor had made it clear he wanted to surrender and they were unwilling to act against his wishes.

Two of the best books on Japan's surrender, and on the fact that the nuking of Japan was not the reason Japan surrendered, are Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, by Washington State University professor of history Noriko Kawamura, and Imperial Eclipse, by Yukiko Koshiro, who worked on Columbia University's special East Asian studies project. Both authors, fluent in Japanese, used previously unknown or ignored primary Japanese sources to shed important new light on how and why Japan surrendered, among other issues.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Michael Griffith