Posted on 04/15/2002 1:11:20 AM PDT by Angelique
In retrospect, the first paragraph of the article should be the major premise, however unfortunate, as it is war. If Nagasaki had to be chosen, and hopefully not as the author describes, then the article is far-reaching.
As numerous other posters have brought up, Nagasaki was the secondary target after Kokura (which is also not an inland city as some here suggested-it's on the N.E. coast of Kyushu near the entrance to the the Inland Sea), but that doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate industrial target on its own. The main Mitsubishi plant was the aiming point, but the bomb missed.
Another poster brought up blockade. In fact, the submarine and aerial mine blockade had nearly brought Japan to it's knees, but not quickly enough to satisfy an America which had seen the end of the war Europe and wanted to get this one over with, too.
The first time I went to my future in-law's house in Nagaski Prefecture, I noticed 2 war era photos on the wall, a woman and a school aged boy. When I asked my wife later who they were, she told me it was her father's older sister and her son, who were killed by the bomb. They didn't live in the city, but by unfortunate chance, went into the city that day.
The fact is, for all the people that died in the atomic bombings, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of lives, both Japanese and American were saved. An invasion of Kyushu would have a bloodbath on a scale that dwarfed Okinawa, the largest battle of the war. The atomic bombing of Nagaski may have "political" in a sense, i.e. let's show the Russians, but it was not bombed because it had a large portion of Japan's tiny Christian population.
Actually Kokura was a very legimitate target. It was one of five seperate cities now consolidated as Kitakyushu City. This was the largest steel producing region of wartime Japan in addition to many other vital industries.
What is amazing to me is that the author NEVER once discusses the validity of the decision to bomb--just the target chosen; and yet everyone reads into the article that invasion is a consideration. Kokura was the intended target. There appears to be three theories on this thread alone regarding why Nagasaki ended up being the target; so you see, there are lots of opinions.
The invasion of Kyushu was very far along in planning by August-see Stark's The Invasion of Japan. It would have gone down if the bombs hadn't worked or hadn't of pushed the Japanese to surrender.
As to why Nagasaki was attacked-it was a fairly large urban and indusrial area that had only been lightly firebombed earlier. It's cold, but we wanted the Japanese to see the effects of the bomb on an intact city. Larger cities like Tokyo, Osaka or Nagoya had already been mostly flattened by conventional firebombing.
But at the last moment the Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who arguably had knowingly precipitated Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack by instigating an international embargo on its life-or-death oil supplies, removed Kyoto from the list for annihilation and replaced it with Nagasaki.
Ponte is just another anti American Bravo Sierra POS, who will rearrange history to suit his agenda. His POS agenda is simple, blame American for everything!
Blaming Stimson for the Boshida Japanese Racists attack on Pearl Harbor is no different than the POS's who blame 9/11 mass murderers on Americans!
Very true. Mitsubishi had two armaments plants at Ohashi. Morimachi and Mitsubishi both had steel plants located in the Urakami Valley, away from the downtown area of Nagasaki. Those targets were detroyed and the residential and business districts of Nagasaki were spared due to the topography of the area.
Bock's Car made three bombing runs on Kokura before Sweeney made the decision to head for the secondary target, Nagasaki. Smoke from the fires still burning from the previous nights bombing of Yawata, by 224 B-29s, prevented the drop on Kokura. Wonder how Stimson was able to manipulate the surface winds to accomplish that feat! One of the many points that revisionists gloss over is this: In the three months that Truman had been President, the United States sustained almost 50% of its total casualties in the Pacific Theater.
On paper it may have appeared that Japan was defeated, but such was not the case. The Japanese conditionally accepted the Potsdam Declaration on 10 August with the following major caveats: Japan would try its own war criminals, Japan would retain control of its troops and disarm said troops itself, the Allies could not occupy the home islands of Japan, Hirohito would remain sovereign ruler. The Allies rejected those terms. Truman counter offered that Hirohito could stay but under the authority of the supreme Allied commander. The Japanese did not reply but instructed their forces to fight on. The Allies toned down their offensive actions and began dropping surrender leaflets instead of bombs. Finally with still no response from Japan, Truman ordered Marshall to resume air raids against Japan. On the 14th Spaatz ordered anything that could carry bombs into the air. The result was the largest raid of the war; 2000 airplanes bombed Japan. High ranking officers planned a coup after Hirohito told them he would announce the surrender to the Japanese people over radio. The coup attempt failed and the message was finally broadcast at noon on the 15th.
This is the most logical explanation, especially given all the other facts you have presented. I am curioius, however. Although the ultimate decision to use the atom bomb on Japan was Truman's, didn't he rely on Stimson for advice, as well as the Manhatten project?
General Sweeney in an interview I saw stated when asked why he wrote the book said he wanted to make sure the real story was told before the truth was lost.
You triggered a memory of seeing an interview with him where he uttered those very words. It did not connect until now.
I have been doing a little research, and apparently Stimson was calliing the shots. Supposedly, he had already advised Truman to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, but of interest: Stimson later noted in his 1948 memoirs, written with McGeorge Bundy, "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." (Stimson & Bundy, "On Active Service in Peace and War" pg. 628-629).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.