G'day guys
Im by far no expert on the topic, but i watched this documentry a little while ago, and then did some reading on the subject.
The A-bomb was a test, in actual fact, to see just how destructive this thing was, i forget the exact details and names, but japan tryed to surrender before the A-bomb was dropped, but some american politition turned away there surrender, as he wanted to use this bomb so badly, i dont know what everyones opinion on this matter is, but i noticed the other thread on this subject, that did have everyones opinion.
I hope this doesnt take the attention away from the other thread, but i just wanted to say that, in my opinion, well theres mixed thoughts, but anyway, has anyone heard this before, about the need to "test" this thing on humanity?

I'd like to hear more of the details of this program. Who was the historian/s behind the program, what are their sources, and who was the politician. It seems as though the only single man in the US powerful enough at that time to deny any possible Japanese surrender request was the President.
Also, the A-bomb had been tested in the desert, where it turned the sand to glass. People from scientists to the President already knew the tremendous power it contained. The bomb was also so secret that only a tiny handful of politicos would have known about it, so the politician would have had to have been a VIP.
I also find the contention that the Japanese had tried to surrender doubtful. If anything, their resistance intensified as the US forces got closer to the home islands. They were stockpiling aircraft, small boats, and ammunition for giant kamikaze missions and last ditch defense. Just about everyone in the country down to teen-aged girls (including my Mom) were given rudimentary training in combat (beyond the usual kendo) to defend the country. Just about everyone was prepared to fight.
The Japanese military dictatorship in charge didn't even think of surrendering as a group until after the A-bombs were dropped. If any one tried on their own to make peace, he probably would have been ratted out and arrested by the secret police and made to disappear. If they did try as a group to surrender, I think it would have come out a long time ago to be used as a further argument for the anit-nuke people for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Many people think the use of the bomb was unnecessary. Imagine the power given to their arguments by the fact that the bomb truly wasn't needed. Most of the members of that government survived the war. I find it hard to believe they all could have kept such a secret should it exist.
Even after the A-bombs were dropped and the Emperor recorded a surrender message for the people of Japan, a large cabal of mostly younger officers tried to stop the record from being broadcast so that they could continue fighting. It was due mostly to the will and cunning of a few dedicated servants of the Emperor and a fortuitously timed bombing raid that knocked out the power to Tokyo that the plot failed.
This is all based simply on what I've seen and read on the subject, nothing authoritative. I can't make any direct refutations of the contentions of the show you mentioned because I haven't seen it and am in no position to judge it without further knowledge. I'm just throwing out my opinions based on what I've found on this subject, which appears to differ greatly from what you saw.

Edit: Dang! I didn't realize I'd written so much. Hope I don't take up too much of your time with my blabbing.

Dave-- You would have to back-up the summation you provided with a great deal more factual data. The agonizing decision to drop the bomb on Japan was made after repeated communication through the Swiss to the Japanese failed to produce a workable end to the conflict. For a time, the Japanese attempted to go through the Russian and negotiate their way out of the war. These futile attempts were made by a country trying to buy time through a country trying to seize Manchuria. Not too honest a group. I'd be curious as to the name of the prgram....sound like another Fahrenheit 9/11.
DJ

Dave, I think I've seen the program you're speaking of. It's called something like "Hiroshima: The decision to drop the bomb." The History Channel trots it out ever year about this time, and I've also seen it on other satellite channels, like True. This last channel is rather ironic because I consider the entire show the biggest pack of lies I've seen in quite a while. Every once in a while I forget what the show is like and find my self watching it, I'm a history addict. After just a few minutes of watching this garbage I remember what the rest is like and quickly find something more historically reverent to watch, like re-runs of Hogan's Heroes.

I'd have to have a script of the show to debate it point by point but the general gist of the show, that the bomb was either a test, or to frighten the Russians, is about as bogus as I can come up with.

If you'd want a much more un-biased account of the entire issue of the dropping of the atomic bombs read Downfall by Richard B Frank. This is one of the best historical accounts that I've read and really goes into detail on why, based on what the US knew AT THE TIME, and without trying to use the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the decision to drop the atomic bomb was the right thing to do.


I love The History Channel, and watch it probably far more than I should, but I've learned over the years to take it with a VERY large grain of salt. First, last, and foremost it is Television, and as such isn't out to state history, but to make money for the owners. To do this they will show any old piece of junk without regard to historical accuracy.

G'day guys
War machine, i remember now the show said the japanese tried to surrender AFTER the first one was dropped, but before the second, americans apparently insisted on finishing the job.
Halfyank, thats very interesting what you said, i too am a BIG history buff, but until i saw that show i had not done any specific looking into hiroshima and nagasaki, so that show was really my "first imprsssion" of the "facts" about it, but now after what youve said, i thinki will have to look for mroe reliable sources!
are you sure it was ALL lies though? if i recall correctly they even talked with one of the crew members of one the the fortresses that dropped the bombs.
anyway thanks for the info cheers

Actually the Japanese did not attempt to surrender after the first bomb. When the Japanese Prime Minister was asked about the surrender demand he used an older and out of use word (Mikatsu? or something like that?) that he was trying to use as a" No Comment" The interpreters thought it to mean "Treat with Silent Contempt" no where in these meanings can a surrender of a major Warring Nation be seen to be offered? So the short answer to your question (or statement ) that the Japanese were trying to surrender is no. In fact a group of Senior Officers in the Japanese Army attempted to stop(On the night of Aug 14 1945) the Emperor's surrender recording from being used at all. So while it may make good copy for America bashing it is in no way true. The Japanese Military wanted to fight to the Death of the Japanese nation and were only stopped by the Direct intervention of the Emperor, no amount of Revisionism will change that fact. It is strange how some of the Producers of this type of "History Program" have an agenda that in in conflict with the facts. Makes you think does it not?
I have learned as with most things now days you must take most things with a grain of salt. Or in this case a brick of it?
Cheers
Jeff Larkin

Jeff, the Japanese word you're thinking of is Mokusatsu. Frank goes over this on pages 234 and 235 of Downfall. This happened after the Potsdam declaration, where the Allies called on Japan to surrender or else, the "or else" would be the atomic bomb, though this wasn't specifically said. Japan was forced to do one of two things with the declaration, either completely ignore it, or to acknowledge it and respond. Japanese prime minister Suzuki had a press conference where one reporter was put up to asking a question about the declaration. Suzuki responded "The government does not regard (The Potsdam Declaration) as a thing of any value; the government will just ignore (Mokusatsu) it. Mokusatsu apparently can mean many things, literally "kill with silence." Unfortunately it has several other meanings, including "treat with silent contempt." It was this meaning that Allied press, especially the New York Times, chose to interpret as the meaning of Mokusatsu. So the Allies basically thought that Japan not only rejected the declaration, but did so with contempt.

David, as to weather a crewman of either of the two planes actually came out against the bombs I would have to see that portion of the show again. I don't doubt that some crew member MIGHT have felt this way, but I truly wonder if this was 20/20 hindsight or not. Many people came out against the decision to drop the bombs, AFTER the fact. It's very easy to have misgivings about something after all is known that couldn't have been know before hand.

I hate to sound like a broken record YET AGAIN on this topic. But does anyone have any studies that show what might have happened since the end of WWII if we DID NOT drop both bombs?? If someone can show me that the cold war would have ended in the same way and not in nuclear obliteration that would help.

Also I have always heard that it was the American position that Japan's surrender be "unconditional" and that was what the Japanese had the most difficulty accepting.

Jim

Jim, I'm not sure if this is what you mean but my point about the decision to drop the bomb has always been this. I don't think anybody doubted that Japan would eventually surrender. The only question then is how long would it take them to eventually quit and how many people would die in the meantime? If you remember that the Soviet Union declared war soon after Hiroshima was bombed, and immediately attacked the Japanese in Manchuria, that Japanese people would soon start to starve due to the blockade, if they weren't already, that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was capable of killing Allied soldiers, like the attack on the Pennsylvania a day or so before the war ended, AND the certainty that more Allied prisoners of war would die the longer it took Japan to quit, then I maintain that fewer people died from the bombs than would have died if the war continued to it's conclusion. Even if the Allies never invaded Japan many many people were still dying.

As to the Unconditional Surrender demand, I don't believe it was just the Americans that demanded this, but also the Allies in general. I understand that Australia was pretty adamant on this score also. There are some that maintain that the Potsdam declaration pretty much told the Japanese that they would be allowed to keep their Emperor, which is the one issue they had with unconditional surrender. Others say that Japan actually surrendered, but with the condition that their Emperor be maintained, so it wasn't really unconditional.