The Atomic Bomb & Soviet Union

I have been reading a lot about the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki recently and unfortunately have come to the conclusion that the predominant reason the bombs were dropped was to warn the Soviet Union- not to save American lives. I'd like to go over the time line and reasons that have led me to this conclusion and if someone can enlighten this subject with additional knowledge or thoughts it would be appreciated. Let me apologize upfront for the length of this. It didn't start out to be so long


1) February 4-11, 1945. Yalta Conference. Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan within 90 days after the defeat of Germany.


NOTE- FDR pushed for this and, in hindsight, this proved to be a major miscalculation on his part. If you argue that the bombs were dropped to warn the Soviets, then this is where the blame starts.


2) July 16, 1945. The Atomic Bomb was successful detonated in New Mexico. The U.S. (and England) now knew that the U.S. had the capability to drop atomic bombs successfully onto Japan.


3) July 17-August 2, 1945. Potsdam Conference. The U.S. & England reaffirmed that the Soviet Union would help the Allies with Japan. Germany surrendered on May 8, so the Russian army would be marching into Manchuria by August 9, 1945, and soon thereafter on into the Japanese mainland.


NOTE- The Soviet Union had removed, by now, all doubt of their intentions with territory they liberated. The Red Army effectively controlled the Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, and Stalin had set up a communist government in Poland. He insisted that his control of Eastern Europe was a defensive measure against possible future attacks and believed that it was a legitimate sphere of Soviet influence.


As a result, Truman felt that far too much ground to the Soviets, and there would be no repeat performance of this with the defeat of Japan. As can be found in his diary re: Potsdam: Anxious as we were to have Russia in the war against Japan, the experience at Potsdam now made me determined that I would not allow the Russians any part in the control of Japan… force is the only thing that the Russians understand.


Based upon the Eastern Europe experience, therefore, Japan would have to surrender before Russia was to get its foot in the door. Otherwise, a Soviet invasion of Japan would justify any territorial demands made by Russia.


Another very important thing happened at Potsdam. Truman told Stalin about "a bomb of exceptional power" but did not call it the Atomic bomb. There was much discussion between Truman and his aides (including Stimson, his Sec. of Defense) as to whether he should tell Stalin.Truman also discussed it with England. It was decided that Stalin should be told.


Now, there was a combination of why Stalin was told. He was an ally so naturally they felt it was right to tell him. But if you read the diaries of all the people there, their main preoccupation in telling him was to gauge his reaction. And to a man they all expressed shock that he had no reaction. A few of them even thought that Stalin didn't understand the magnitude of what he was being told, due to his lack of wanting to know more.


However, we do learn of Stalin's reaction from Soviet Marshal Georgii Zhukov's memoirs. He was with Stalin when he was told, and also accompanied Stalin back to his quarters:

As was later written abroad, at that moment Churchill fixed his gaze on Stalin's face, closely observing his reaction. However, Stalin did not betray his feelings and pretended that he saw nothing special in what Truman had imparted to him. Both Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he had heard.


In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman. The latter reacted amost immediately. "Let them. We'll have to talk it over with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up."


I realized that they were talking about research on the atomic bomb.
It was clear already then that the US Government intended to use the atomic weapon for the purpose of achieving its Imperialist goals from a position of strength in "the cold war." This was amply corroborated on August 6 and 8. Without any military need whatsoever, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on the peaceful and densely-populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Georgii Konstantinovich Zhukov, The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov (New York: Delacorte Press, 1971) pp. 674-675.


So in the minds of the Soviets, this was a gauntlet being thrown by the U.S. I believe this throwing of the gauntlet, or warning, was also the main intent the U.S. wanted to impart on Stalin, especially given Truman's statement in his diary.


4) July 22, 1945. Japan makes peace offering, which is rejected by the U.S., ostensibly because it came with the proviso that the Japanese be permitted to retain the institution of the emperor and thus fell short of the unconditional surrender the U.S. demanded.



NOTE- But, as General MacArthur agreed, when Japan surrendered three weeks later, after the bombs had fallen and Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed, it was agreed that the institution of the emperor would remain intact anyway.


Also, Japan was negotiating with the U.S. through Russia, as they had a non-aggression pact. However, it is accepted as history that Russia diplomats stalled in meeting with Japanese officials, or didn't meet with them at all, because they did not want any surrender signed before August 9, when the Soviets could join the fight and establish a claim on parts of Japan.


So, at this point neither the U.S. or Russia wanted peace with Japan. Again, it bears repeating. The conditions of unconditional surrender signed by the U.S. and Japan after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki included the Emperor remaining intact in the same position as was offered July 22 by the Japanese. Had this peace offering been accepted there would have been no need for bombing and no loss of U.S. troops on the soil of Japan, which is the reason given for dropping the bombs.


5) August 6, 1945- Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima


6) August 9, 1945- Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki and Russia invades Manchuria.


7) August 10-August 27, 1945- Emperor Hirohito informs the Allies of his intention to accept their terms for ending the war and negotiations begin for formal surrender.


8) August 28, 1945- The occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers began.


9) September 2, 1945- Surrender Ceremony



What I have outlined, to the best of my knowledge, are undisputed facts that are known to be historical incidents. It is the joining of these facts together that lead me to my opinion.


If a person still has the opinion that the U.S. used the atomic bomb in order to save U.S. lives then there is perhaps the most important question to ask:

Why, then, didn't we drop a bomb in a wooded area 4-500 miles outside Tokyo, and let them see the destruction?


This question has been asked before and the answer is 'because they still wouldn't surrender'. My response to that is so we went ahead and killed a quarter of a million people based on an 'opinion' ? What kind of decision-making is that, especially for something so important? Second, if the Japanese weren't convinced, then we still could have bombed a city. This wasn't a zero sum game- we could have done both.

The fact is that the U.S. was working under a tight window- from July 16 when we knew we had a successful bomb to August 9, when Russia would invade Manchuria and then Japan.If we were to show Russia what we could do, that's when we had to do it.

My conclusion is that we wanted to show Russia what we could do because we were thinking of the post-War geopolitical world. We wanted to show them that we could drop the bomb over a civilian target, and would do so if provoked. They had shown us what they were capable of when they took over half of Europe and we not only were going to stop them with Japan but would inhibit them in the rest of the world. Of course that became moot when they got the bomb in 1949 (which shocked the West).

If there is information which changes this reasoning I would love to discuss it. I want to be proven wrong as it is terrible to think my Government unnecessarily killed that many people, and it is terrible to have them soil the memory of our heroes by associating them with so many people killed, because the Government says they were thinking of them, when that wasn't the reason at all.

 

Did the dropping of the bombs end the war with Japan?

Dropping on a wood would have had no effect at all...they still did not end the war after first bomb...Would you want them to drop it on another wood after the first one that didn't work?

If the bombs had not been dropped when they were, not withstanding your reasoning...The war would have continued till when?

Whichever way you look at it. It saved American and allied lives. The reaoning may be suspect in your mind, the outcome is though the desired outcome of ending the war with Japan and ending the loss of Allied lives.

"
Why, then, didn't we drop a bomb in a wooded area 4-500 miles outside Tokyo, and let them see the destruction?


This question has been asked before and the answer is 'because they still wouldn't surrender'. My response to that is so we went ahead and killed a quarter of a million people based on an 'opinion' ? What kind of decision-making is that, especially for something so important? Second, if the Japanese weren't convinced, then we still could have bombed a city. This wasn't a zero sum game- we could have done both."

The proof though is in the pudding...Yes we could have done both...And if one bomb on a population centre did not in reality end the war....Then after dropping your bomb on the woods and then on a population centre. What has changed to end the war when it took two not one city to be obliterated. The woods are bombed...no surrender...the population area is bombed with second bomb...If the real bomb dropped on Hiroshima did not end things..whats changed with the dropping of the second bombl on the first populated area...It as history proved would take 2 cities to be oblitereated before Japan surrendered. One woods and one city would change nothing...a third bomb would be needed...nothing would change that situation. If the Japanese did not act on the dropping of bomb on Hiroshima why then would they act on one on a wooded area...the second would still not be enough. As history proved...it took 2 cities to be bombed in this way. One was never going to be enough for Japan.

 

Oh my lord, is there so much work to do here...

How does "the blame start here? As of this date, no one was even sure that the atomic bomb would work, and Soviet help was viewed by the United States as, shall we say, a "necessary evil." in the final assault on Japan. Further, Truman also would push for this Soviet "help", up until Trinity changed his mind.

A successful ground test under rather "ideal" and mostly "controlled" parameters, does not guarantee that the weapon will function as intended under combat conditions.

The Zhukov quote can hardly be construed as "evidence", as the writing has been done with some three decades of hindsight into the events as the transpired. Further, if you really look into the matter, you will find that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly the "peaceful" cities that Zhukov assumes them to be. Just as there is ample evidence that the Soviets were beginning their own "cold war" while they were still fighting the Germans - I don't think there is anyone who would agree the the Soviets were "allies" in the full sense of the word, but they acted the part of reluctant allies...Just look at the trials and toothpulling that it took to get Soviet cooperation in "Operation Frantic", and the miserable mess that became.

You are completely missing the point here.

It is not simply a matter of ending the war...Done...Fini...Over. But, it is a matter of ending the war on the United States terms, and not ending the war on Japanese terms. It is easily construed that by ending the war on the Japanese terms offered, the Japanese could later claim that they were not "militarily" defeated, but were "betrayed" by the politicians to end the war. Adolf Hitler used this quite effectively in his rise to power...and we all know how that ended, and I don't think that anyone in their right mind would want to see a repeat of it. Therefore, the Japanese would have to be utterly defeated in a way that left no doubts as to how and why they were defeated. Thus Japan would have to be defeated on the Allies terms and not on the terms of the Japanese. So again, by blithely stating that "neither the U.S. or Russia wanted peace with Japan.", shows an utter lack of understanding about the reasoning behind the US declination of Japanese terms.

I'm sorry, but this question makes my head really hurt...

"Opinion" you say...How so? American B-29s burned out about 16 square miles of Tokyo and the Japanese did not surrender, and the Americans continued to repeat this process on all major Japanese cities and the Japanese did not surrender. The Americans moved on to burn out several of the smaller Japanese cities and yet the Japanese did not surrender. The Americans to to announcing the targets they would bomb and dared the Japanese to stop them(which they didn't) and still the Japanese did not surrender. So, what makes you believe that the Japanese would surrender by turning trees into kindling? - Incidentally, a similar argument was used in the dropping of the first atomic bomb, with the suggestion of hitting an unpopulated island in Tokyo Bay, and was quickly shot down. Further, what would be the Japanese reaction if the Americans had announced their intention and the bomb turned out to be a dud...On August 5th, there was a trial held to test the bombs fuzing and detonators and it ended in failure. The "dummy" bomb fell harmlessly into the Pacific without emitting a tell-tale puff of smoke that the triggering mechanisms had worked as intended. So, one day before Hiroshima, there is still the remaining question of will the bomb work or not. A "failed demonstration" would hardly be expected to bring the Japanese to the surrender table.

Further, it does not explain how dropping such a bomb, on what was an already defeated nation that refused to surrender, was intended to cower the Soviets. Having a devastating weapon that can only be properly used if the enemy is has already been beaten to within an inch of his life is not all that impressive. Nor does it take into account that the bomb had originally been intended for Germany, and to end the war in Europe. Not to mention the fact that the idea that the Bomb was meant to impress the Soviets appears for all intents and purposes to be "sauce for the goose." - an additional side benefit that was entirely unintentional.

 

This (H + N) has already been discussed,ad nauseam, and,frankly, I don't know why people are starting this again,without making the trouble to look on what has been discussed about H + N in this forum.

Before reading the OP,I knew already the content : the evil US who were killing thousands of innocent civilians .


It's all a waste of time : people who still are arguing that the aim of H + N was to impress the SU,will never change their minds .It's useless to argue with people who still claim that H + N were civilian targets .There were no such things in WWII

 

First of all, I'm also sick ad nauseum of people responding to posters like you just did. Why do you waste my time AND yours writing your drivel, complaining about this when you can just ignore it?

Second, I did a search and didn't find anything on it. So I missed it...big deal. Ignore me then.

Third, you're so proud about knowing what it says without reading it. Then you make an ignorant statement. The entire tone of my question is to ask for more information to understand it from different perspectives- not to convince anyone.

I'm now going to move on...why don't you do the same?


To Urqh & Takao- Thnx for your replies. Am working up some questions/responses to reply to you.

 

Oh yes ? "We wanted to show them that we could drop the bomb over a civilian target":is this asking for information? Or is this proclaiming a POV ?

" I want to be proven wrong " : = proof that I am wrong .

 

It is also obvious that you did no search : in less than one minute,I found the following :

1)Another question about the use of Atomic Bombs in WWII
2)Would you consider the Atomic Bombs a war crime?
3)Was there a third atomic bombs target ?
4)Hiroshima "biggest turning point"

Etc .

 

Urqh & Takao, some comments and ceded points from your posts....

1) If the Japanese did not act on the dropping of bomb on Hiroshima why then would they act on one on a wooded area...the second would still not be enough. As history proved...it took 2 cities to be bombed in this way. One was never going to be enough for Japan.

I agree that dropping a bomb in the woods wouldn't have done anything. I didn't realize how much firebombing we did before Hiroshima (as was mentioned). In fact, I found an interesting video where McNamara talks about how we firebombed 67 Japanese cities, killing 50-90% of the people. If this didn't make them surrender then an atomic bomb in the woods wouldn't either- agree. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJDj-oLYyM)

2) The Zhukov quote can hardly be construed as "evidence", as the writing has been done with some three decades of hindsight into the events as the transpired. Further, if you really look into the matter, you will find that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly the "peaceful" cities that Zhukov assumes them to be.

Of course there is propaganda with what Zhukov says but talking about peaceful cities or U.S. imperialism is not the important part of the quote. The important part is that Stalin et al believed the U.S. was sending a warning. And I think it is fairly obvious that that is what the U.S. intended.

You may believe that the bomb was not dropped for political reasons, but wouldn't you agree that there was a political aspect to having the atomic bomb at that point?

3) You are completely missing the point here. It is not simply a matter of ending the war...Done...Fini...Over. But, it is a matter of ending the war on the United States terms, and not ending the war on Japanese terms.

Agree- this is an important point. But I wonder how that worked. Japan says 'we want an Emperor' in mid-late June and the U.S. says 'no, we will tell you what you get'. Then one month later the U.S. Says 'you can have an Emperor'? Seems strange.

4) "Opinion" you say...How so? American B-29s burned out about 16 square miles of Tokyo and the Japanese did not surrender, and the Americans continued to repeat this process on all major Japanese cities and the Japanese did not surrender. The Americans moved on to burn out several of the smaller Japanese cities and yet the Japanese did not surrender.

Yes, as I mentioned I didn't realize the extent of the firebombing. Sixty-seven cities tells me they weren't going to surrender with an atomic bomb flattening a bunch of trees.

5) Further, it does not explain how dropping such a bomb, on what was an already defeated nation that refused to surrender, was intended to cower the Soviets. Having a devastating weapon that can only be properly used if the enemy is has already been beaten to within an inch of his life is not all that impressive. Nor does it take into account that the bomb had originally been intended for Germany, and to end the war in Europe.

The value of the atomic bomb was not any different because Japan was a beaten nation. Its threat was what it could do to Russia, as evidenced by the destruction it did to Japan. Why could it only be used if the enemy was beaten? As long as there were B-29s available in 1945 that could deliver it, it posed a threat. Nor having it meant for Germany made it any less dangerous to Russia.


I can see why there are various viewpoints on this- thnx for the additional insights and info.

 

It would have been criminal to propose to first use a A Bomb for a demonstration :let's assume that the A Bomb could kill 5000 Japanese soldiers:to waste one bomb for a demonstration would mean that 5000 Japanese soldiers would have been saved ,who could kill a lot of US soldiers . I would have court-martialled the first stupid one who would propose such thing.

 

Stalin already knew everything about the bomb.

The British Spy, Fuchs (actually a German, anti-Nazi) had already passed the secrets to Beria. The British provided the initial technology for Manhattan project - or more accurately middle and eastern European scientists such as Fuchs working for the British - interestingly, such scientists were not allowed to work on Radar which the British considered more important and vital to their security having seen the French betray the secrets of ASDIC to the Germans.

Fuchs like the rest of the team had been shipped off to the US and was only exposed later when he returned to the UK to work on nuclear projects. Strangely, he thought he had done nothing wrong and was surprised that he was not allowed to go back to work on the project!

 

The fact of the July 22 peace offering is pretty damning, and makes any statement like "and still the Japanese would not surrender" false, at most you could state "and still the Japanese would not surrender on the terms the US wanted", which is a quite different proposition. It would be interesting to know what would have happened had Stalin responded with something like "oh your A bomb is ready ? our is still a few months off" (quite out of character I admit but it would inject a different perspective in an otherwise bashed to death discussion).

BTW statements like "there were no civilian targets" is hugely dangerous, if "there are no civilian targets" then we have just forfeited our most powerful argument with respect to terrorism.

 

Stalin knew more than the Allied expected...Alan Nunn May:

In July 1945, when Nunn May told his Soviet controller that he was due to be sent home soon, Moscow decided to get as much out of him as it could. On July 9 of that year, a week before the Americans tested an atomic bomb, he passed small amounts of enriched uranium to his Soviet handler, later providing details of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. In return, he received $200 and a bottle of whisky.

Shortly after the war, Igor Gouzenko, a lieutenant in the GRU and cipher clerk at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, defected with documents giving details of Soviet agents, including Nunn May.

By then, Nunn May had returned to Britain, where he was arrested, put on trial and sentenced to 10 years' hard labour, of which he served six.

The fact that Nunn May, whose Communist sympathies were known, had been allowed to work in such a sensitive area prompted the U.S. Congress to pass the 1946 McMahon Act, which restricted exchanges of atomic information and forced the British to develop its own bomb alone.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Nunn_May

 

In a total war as was WWII,can one claim that there were military targets and civilian targets ?If it was allowed to kill a Japanese soldier,why would it not be allowed to attack a city where ammunition,etc,was produced. Was it not legitimate to attack trainswho could transport ammunition? Even when they did not transport ammunition ?

While in WWII,it was not allowed to kill intentionally civilians (there were exceptions),it was inevitable that this should happen .

The non intentionally killing of civilians was allowed,and was inevitable .

There is also no comparison possible between terrorism (9/11) and air attacks .: the aim of the terrorists is to kill civilians,as much as possible.The aim of the air attacks was not to kill civilians : with the primitive means of these days,it was even impossible to target civilians .

H + N were military targets,where were living a lot of civilians :it was obvious that the attacks would RESULT in big civilian losses,but:this was inevitable,and,no one cared about : in 1945,the live of a Japanese had no value .
Those who are whining about H + N should think on the following : if H + N could not be attacked because the attacks could result in the loss of civilians,this would be a permit for the Japanese to concentrate their war industries in heavily populated cities .

Last point(which is generally ignored) :the aim of the A Bomb was not only to force Japan to surrender,but also to kill Japanese soldiersnwho otherwise could kill US soldiers ,and,as such,the A Bomb was not different from napalm etc .

 

Awfully convenient excuse was it not (backed by Truman) when the British had shared all their secrets, as agreed early in the War, and especially the jet engine research of Whittle.

 

May I also remind every one (72 years after PH) that there were also civilian losses at PH :thus,if Japan was allowed to attack a military target,notwithstanding that this resulted in civilian casualties,why would the US not be allowed to attack a civilian target,because this resulted in civilian losses ?

 

I don't see why this had any importance : as TRuman said after the death of Roosevelt : the answer is still : unconditional surrender = to capitulate without making conditions : Japan had to put itself at the mercy of the US :a peace of compromise was out of the question .: it was very simple for Japan to avoid H + N : to give up .

 

@BIW

Should Americans send the Japanese an A-bomb sample free of charge to evaluate the risks of prolonged war?

Americans did it right: quick delivery, by airmail, delivery free of charge with detonators activated. Why waste of time if American losses have been increasing with every minute of the war? Whatever they intended with these two bombs, they did the right thing.

 

Yep seems strange to me too. But only in that Hirohito was not put on trial as as a War Criminal.

Sorry could not resist this - but I think MacArthur did a poor job which resonates to this day in the refusal of the Japanese to face up to their war guilt.

 

I do agree with your point of view on this subject: as soon as the war ended, the USA started fraternizing with their main enemies: Japan and Germany and begun alienating their original allies. However, that was not McArthur's idea. He has just done what the administration told him to do. As soon as he started contradicting the administration's policies, they sacked him in April 1951. (Truman: I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.)

 

LJAd- It would have been criminal to propose to first use a A Bomb for a demonstration :let's assume that the A Bomb could kill 5000 Japanese soldiers:to waste one bomb for a demonstration would mean that 5000 Japanese soldiers would have been saved ,who could kill a lot of US soldiers . I would have court-martialled the first stupid one who would propose such thing.

BIW- Under that scenario the 5,000 'saved' Japanese soldiers would have been killed by a 2nd atomic bomb which would have been dropped if Japan didn't surrender- they wouldn't have had the chance to kill our soldiers. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't belief the Japanese would have surrendered under that scenario, once I learned of the extent of the firebombing.

Tired Old Soldier- The fact of the July 22 peace offering is pretty damning, and makes any statement like "and still the Japanese would not surrender" false, at most you could state "and still the Japanese would not surrender on the terms the US wanted", which is a quite different proposition. ...

LJAd- I don't see why this had any importance : as TRuman said after the death of Roosevelt : the answer is still : unconditional surrender = to capitulate without making conditions : Japan had to put itself at the mercy of the US :a peace of compromise was out of the question .: it was very simple for Japan to avoid H + N : to give up.

BIW- The U.S. essentially had 2 possible peace scenarios before them:

1) On July 22 or before (EDIT- I meant June 22) the U.S. could have said to Japan “you give us unconditional surrender and we will let you keep the Emperor as a figurehead, as long as you don't use it for political gain, or else we try him as a war criminal.” Then there would have been no H or N, the Russians would have been kept out, and there'd be no worry about U.S. fatalities fighting in Japan. We actually did a deal like this with the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crises 17 years later, when we secretly agreed to pull our missiles out of Turkey if they pulled theirs out of Cuba, and asked them to not publicize it (which they honored).

2) To do what we did, and not negotiate with them at all and only accept unconditional surrender. We wound up letting them keep their Emperor as a figurehead. The result, of course was a prolonged war with no Russian involvement and H&N.

I understand that because of Pearl Harbor there was a lot of support for revenge and #2. But that policy decision was a poor one for the U.S. , and could have been disastrous. If we had seriously discussed peace with Japan in early-mid 1945, when they started making serious peace offerings, and selected Option #1, this could have shortened the war in Europe and deterred Russia's advance in Eastern Europe.

But Russia winning Eastern Europe was not the worse-case scenario. In early-mid 1945 we had no idea when we would have the bomb. What if we didn't get the bomb for another 6 months, until late 1945? By that time Russia would have been in Japan and we would have very likely lost part of it to the Soviet Union just like we lost Eastern Europe. We'd have a 2nd East/West Germany.

So in early-mid 1945 we were risking losing part of Japan to Russia because we didn't want to negotiate peace with Japan. That's terrible decision-making. We were damn lucky, from a geo-political standpoint, that we got the bomb when we did.


Tamino- Should Americans send the Japanese an A-bomb sample free of charge to evaluate the risks of prolonged war? Americans did it right: quick delivery, by airmail, delivery free of charge with detonators activated. Why waste of time if American losses have been increasing with every minute of the war? Whatever they intended with these two bombs, they did the right thing.

BIW- There was an offer on the table. We should have told the Japanese to sign an Unconditional Surrender and we would be 'inclined' to let them keep the Emperor as a figurehead- just like the agreement we signed with them a few weeks later. If that wasn't acceptable to them, then H&N was an acceptable option. And I agree with you- at that point a 'sample' bomb would have been a waste of time and effort, and would have done nothing to help the Japanese change their mind, given the firebombing of their cities.

Scipio- Yep seems strange to me too. But only in that Hirohito was not put on trial as as a War Criminal.....

Sorry could not resist this - but I think MacArthur did a poor job which resonates to this day in the refusal of the Japanese to face up to their war guilt.

BIW- Hmm....There's a moral argument there but expediency sometimes trumps morality, like using ex-Naxis to help fight communism, etc. Do you really think McArthur, or anyone, could have forced the Japanese to live up to their war guilt more? Even today, almost 70 years later, they don't do enough according to some people. A note here from personal experience- Many of these countries perpetuate the war guilt thing in order to keep alive anti-Japanese sentiment as it helps them politically. That's my opinion, anyways.