[walford]

I can certainly concede that there is some question as to whether the bomb decisively ended the war. There was no unconditional surrender as demanded. [We conceded the condition of letting them keep their emperor, for example.]

However, the MOTIVATIONS listed are an egregious slander being purported as Historical fact. It would have been passable as history if there were this caveat: - this was but one OPINION of many.

It is far more likely that Truman believed that the bombs would end the war. Indeed, it is likely that they shortened it considerably.

I recall Accuracy In Media founder Reed Irvine writing to the NY Times that he was amongst the troops awaiting orders to assault the main island. His future wife was in Nagasaki when the 2nd bomb was dropped. He went on to say that they both survived those A-bombs but it was unlikely that either of them would have survived the planned invasion. [Review battle for Okinawa.]

This History Channel slam piece is pure propaganda probably timed to inflame America hatred abroad and self-loathing at home. Why don't they do an expose on the past and present condition of women in the Islamic world?

Here's something to get them started: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1130760/posts http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/BehindVeil/btv3.html#CH3

[oceanview]

the Japanese were not "about to surrender", not unconditionally. in fact there was a coup attempt even after the bombs were dropped - it only failed because one top general would not go along. right to the very end, the coup plotters did everything to try and stop the Emperor's radio message from being played.

[oceanview]

a great film on the subject

[ken5050]

What is often overlooked/ognored in any discussion of the decision to drop the A boms, is that the two bombing missions on Hamburg and Dresden..the thousand plane raids...killed more people in each city than the Japanese cities combined...

FYI, a year or so agothere wsa new biography of Paul Tibetts."THe Man Who Won the War"..an excellent book, and a MUST read for anyone interested int he topic..

[Rockitz]

Since my father entered the US Navy in 1946, I have no doubt that I and many others are alive today because the bomb was dropped. Taking the Japanese mainland would have cost many US lives. Thanks Harry!

[dix]

Great topic. For whatever reason these “experts” give, the fact of the matter is the Nips surrendered after we dropped the bomb.

[VOA]

4. The bombs were unnecessary, because the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

yeah, that's why they ran up the white flag after the first one was dropped.

Wait a second...

[what's up]

Russia was probably a factor, but if the Japanese were just about to surrender, they would have done it after the first bomb.

[Cicero]

I suspect that putting the fear of God into Stalin was ONE of HST's motives. I have heard it said before, many years ago, well before historical revisionism became rampant. And why not? Stalin was gobbling up Eastern Europe and there was a serious threat that he might move into France and Italy, which had large Communist movements eager to welcome him. The U.S. was not eager to move major forces back from the Pacific to guard against that.

But it was hardly the main motive.

[The Great RJ]

Truman's reasons were complex and certain;y he preferred to have Japan surrender under favorable term to the Us rather than have to deal with the Soviets.

However, despite devastating bombing of Japan's cities and the nearly total strangulation of her imported supplies, neither the Emperor or his government were willing to surrender. They were fully prepared for a suicidal attack on invading allied forces with whatever they could put together. Though they could not have more than slowed an allied invasion in the fall of 1945, they would have continued a guerrilla war against occupying forces for years. Allied POW's also would have been automatically killed once the invasion started.

What Truman hoped to accomplish was a knockout punch that would move the idea of surrender forward. The dropping of the second bomb was done simply because it was ready and the Japanese government had nor responded in time. The idea of using it as a "test" is absurd--the device had already been tested on New Mexico in July 1945. The Hiroshima bomb was the untested one.

So much for revisionist history.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Here is some food for thought. It is estimated that 89% of allied prisoners of war that were held captive by Germany were released and returned home after the war. It is also estimated that 91% of allied prisoners of war held captive by the Japanese never returned home. This evident culture caste of the Japanese mindset versus the German mindset as to treatment of war prisoners tells a stark story about Japanese hatred of allied forces. Dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan was the right decision and saved many allied soldiers lives. I might ask the current American population to take heed of these facts. History will repeat itself. At least in WWII we had FDR & HST, Democrats who believed in defending America and minimizing American military deaths and injuries. The current Democrat Party with John Kerry at its head, has no such policy or backbone as witnessed by their current, daily defeatist actions! Our Arab Muslim terrorist enemies/haters are just waiting in the wings for the "make nice" morons to gain power in the USA. America needs a wake-up call, or many Americans will pay a price far beyond what they imagine, loss of life and, more important loss of liberty and freedom. It's your choice, America!

[PogySailor]

This is History Channel revisionism. The casualties that would have been incured to take the home islands of the Empire would have made Iwo Jima and Okinawa seem trivial.

Even after the firebombing of Tokyo which killed over 80,000 people the Japanese military would not surrender.

In fact they resisted surrender even after two atomic strikes. Here is a good article from a surprising author on the subject.

[A Jovial Cad]

My grandfather was a Pacific War Veteran (1942-'45).
In late July, 1945, as MacArthur was planning Olympic & Coronet (the planned land invasion of the Japanese Isles), he related that everyone in his squadron (5th Air Force, 49th Fighter Group, 8th Pursuit Squadron) just assumed that they would all soon be dead in that attempt. They were projecting 100%--note that, please: 100%!--aircrew casualties by D+30 in the briefings they where being given. The Atomic bombs--Hiroshima & Nagasaki--saved his, and hundreds of thousands of American lives--and millions of Japanese casualties. So he maintained to his dying day--and I believe him.
I don't really care what the "motivations" where for doing it (though I doubt the "History" channel is telling the unrefined truth)--Harry was right, and I'm glad we dropped them.
EOM

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Yeah my Dad was on his way to some sort of staging area when the little darlings surrendered. The survival rate among TBF flyers and crew was not too high.

[LibKill]

Given:

1. The Japanese habit of fighting to the last man.

2. The horrendous casualties of the island campaigns.

3. The then-new horror of men who would blow themselves up to kill their enemies (kamikazis).

4. The (righteous) resentment of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

The use of the atomic bomb was inevitable. If there had been a more powerful weapon it would have been used.

I think Truman made the right decision.

[Moose4]

Speaking as someone whose father was sitting in the Philippines in August 1945, and who had already been told he was going to be part of either Operation Coronet or Operation Olympic...I don't care why they dropped them. I'm just damn glad they did, because without them, I doubt I'd be here.

}:-)4

[Young Werther]

I would suggest that you read Truman's AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

He discuses his decision at length. Truman understood his options and had he wanted to make a statement without destroying a Japanese city he might have considered Oppenheimer's suggestion that an uninhabited Pacific island be used to "scare" the world!!

The manner in which the targets were selected demonstrated the humane manner in which this decision was reached. For Example, Kyoto was not on the target list because it was a religious site which might infuriate the Japenese. Hiroshima had not received much bomb damage, (while more people were burned to death in the Tokyo firebomb raids carried out by LeMay's B-29s) and it was the home to a homeland defense garrison. This argument goes on and on and hasn't changed much in 60 years. I enjoy the History channel, (BA History!!) but I've found some of the shows to be sloppily produced. When this happens, I just click over to another show!

[Springman]

Bump for later.

[jpsb]

"dropping the A-bombs on Japan were unnecessary"

Someone forgot to tell Mac Author, in 45 he was planing the invasion of Japan and not looking forward to the lose of American life it would entailed.

[walford]

The History Channel just quashed my thread, so I appended my comments here. They know very well that their portrayal of HST and the American people's motivation is slander.
http://boards.historychannel.com/threaded.jsp?forum=101&thread=300011719&start=29&msgSeq=29

[Doctor Stochastic]

After the fact, it wasn't obvious that the Soviets would destroy the Japanese army in Manchuria so decisively. Given Truman's knowledge at the time, dropping the bombs was the correct thing to do; end the war quickly.

The Japanese didn't believe that the Hiroshima bomb was nuclear at first. Communications with Hiroshima were destroyed and the actual destruction wasn't as much as some of the other raids. The Americans communicated (somehow, probably not by pidgeon) that the Japanese should examine the sulfur in the phone line insulation. It would contain a quantity of a rare isotope of chlorine the could only be produced by a neutron flux.