Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bucky

(55,334 posts)
36. Thanks for responding. I've based my arguments on primary sources, hence contradictions.
Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:08 PM
Aug 2013

(1) Truman's disclosure may have been vague, but Stalin knew it was the A-bomb and more about what an atomic bomb could do than Truman. Stalin's intel on Manhattan had the date for testing the bomb wrong and he chewed out Beria for not informing him of a successful test. Stalin was expecting this news. Truman no going into details without a full tech spec on a highly classified project is understandable. When Stalin met with US Ambassador Harriman to inform the US about the Soviet declaration on Japan in August, he revealed that he had a nuke program himself and knew about the German, US, and British atomic projects. Stalin was not out of the loop on atomics

(2) I agree, the time table for the Soviet invasion was impressive. However he'd started moving units into place, attempting to do so undetected, from June of '45. Ambassador Sato wasn't fooled; his intel in Russia revealed the eastward troop movements, but his superiors in Tokyo chose to ignore this and continue to rely on Stalin's good offices. The fact that Stalin moved up the dates of his invasion is quite well documented in declassified Soviet records, although including this in a Hiroshima analysis may not be more current than 2005, when Prof. Hasegawa published his research in Racing the Enemy.

Stalin at Potsdam told Truman and Churchill that he'd be ready to launch his attack on Japan in the second half of August. Upon getting word from Truman about the Bomb, he moved the date up to August 11th. When the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, he moved the date up another 48 hours, to August 9th. It was this sudden mass invasion that got the Japanese to surrender. It was during the discussion of how to accept the Potsdam Declaration that the Big Six heard about Nagasaki, which didn't seem to shock them as much as Russia.

(3) I'm not making these arguments. I'm basing them on a well respected professor's research. I love a good verbal scrap, but I don't argue against facts and I don't argue against success. But to use logic, please remember that Stalin had agreed at Yalta in 1944 to join the war by 90 days after Germany's fall. That happened in April. Stalin very much wanted to get a toe in the Pacific so that he'd control the ports at Darien and Port Arthur. What was really holding him up was his pledge to talk out term with Chaing Kai Shek before entering the war (Stalin had little desire to support Mao at this point). The Chinese also wanted Darien and Port Arthur, so the negotiations stalled.

Stalin eventually broke that one promise from Yalta in order to get into the war ASAP. But he wasn't going to wait to start preparing for the war against Japan until after the 90-day timeline or until after Potsdam. Preparations began at the latest by June, but planning certainly began in May. Moving up the invasion date by about two weeks (in two steps) wasn't shaving 40% off the prep time for invasion. It was shaving off two weeks out of more than two months of relocation activity. Again, read the book. \ Elsewhere in this thread I've provided a link to it online.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The horse.... Socal31 Aug 2013 #1
heaven forfend that we should discuss possible alternatives in such a horrific event. niyad Aug 2013 #3
Rape of Nanking. Heaven forbid that we should discuss possible alternatives in Nanjing to Seoul Aug 2013 #14
Possiable alternatives? Lancero Aug 2013 #28
best post of the annual Niceguy1 Aug 2013 #29
Some of us believe the examination of historical events is worthwhile. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #30
is it so hard to understand that the possible alternatives discussion reference should have happened niyad Aug 2013 #31
Apparently, to many, it is. ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #40
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2013 #41
Ah, Bullshit. cliffordu Aug 2013 #50
I diagree that neither target was a military target NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #55
Yes we did telclaven Aug 2013 #56
I have asked why the hypothetical "million casualties" invasion was necessary Bonobo Aug 2013 #2
The world had gone through WWI and now less than thirty years later was engulfed in another war Fumesucker Aug 2013 #9
OK, let's put ourselves in their shoes. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #18
WWII was a catclysmic national effort for the USA as well as other nations Fumesucker Aug 2013 #24
How about dropping the bomb to save innocent lives? hack89 Aug 2013 #48
Which innocent lives would have been lost? Jim Lane Aug 2013 #59
There were deaths ongoing up to the day Allied occupation troops arrived hack89 Aug 2013 #63
Read a goddamned book. cliffordu Aug 2013 #51
I've read lots of books. Bonobo Aug 2013 #57
Coming from you, that's hot praise. cliffordu Aug 2013 #58
It was obviously a message to the Soviets. joshcryer Aug 2013 #4
The timing doesn't work out for your argument. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #12
OK, under that scenario, I wholly agree. joshcryer Aug 2013 #15
Yes, I was talking about only a few weeks. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #19
Bucky claims Stalin was advancing his troops. joshcryer Aug 2013 #22
How was Russia going to overrun Japan? Swim? GreenStormCloud Aug 2013 #67
There's a fabulous book of essays about this LearnedHand Aug 2013 #5
Personally I suspect Truman was actually afraid that Japan would surrender jimlup Aug 2013 #6
Poppycock. Bucky Aug 2013 #10
I agree with this post. hunter Aug 2013 #7
A few more incorrect statements from this thread Bucky Aug 2013 #11
Moral arguments are silly when discussing atrocities like this. hunter Aug 2013 #13
The list grows Bucky Aug 2013 #20
The war machine for the Japanese invasion was rolling yes... hunter Aug 2013 #32
"two bombs, bang bang, and the good guys win" Bucky Aug 2013 #39
"US intel showed Japan had more defenders ready on Kyushu" - ummm ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #42
good question. Bucky Aug 2013 #43
"essentially a weapon of terror" - yep - it sure was. ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #45
Why the focus on Truman's decision. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #62
Since Hiroshima was the MHQ for the second army nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #54
The targeting documents are dry reading, like most military documents, but are available ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #60
I actually think that using those two nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #61
This message was self-deleted by its author HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #44
Not invaded? You don't know your history. Read up on Operaton Olympic. GreenStormCloud Aug 2013 #46
November 1st... hunter Aug 2013 #52
A list of incorrect statements in this thread so far Bucky Aug 2013 #8
Nice contradiction. What gives? joshcryer Aug 2013 #17
Those are two very different things in the real world Bucky Aug 2013 #21
How long do you think the Soviets had until they got a surrender? joshcryer Aug 2013 #23
I appreciate that you're not echoing the tired "save American lives" meme, but.... Jim Lane Aug 2013 #25
Let's be clear, i.e. an Asian "iron curtain" zipplewrath Aug 2013 #35
Thanks for responding. I've based my arguments on primary sources, hence contradictions. Bucky Aug 2013 #36
Little to NO sympathy for the use of the A-bomb. Hulk Aug 2013 #16
You're begging the question. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #26
All right, I'll try. sofa king Aug 2013 #27
We marched the marines across atomic bomb wastelands later... in Nevada. hunter Aug 2013 #33
Definitely not a consideration. sofa king Aug 2013 #49
I have often wondered what the ramifications of waiting for a Soviet invasion were Lee-Lee Aug 2013 #34
Well, why not wait a few weeks more than a few? brooklynite Aug 2013 #37
Sure, wait the additional time if you know that yet another powerful nation will declare war. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #38
Not even hindsight is 20/20 in this case. Bake Aug 2013 #47
Fact: you cant un-explode an A-bomb 68 year later markiv Aug 2013 #53
They had a chance to surrender and they rejected it -- The Potsdam Declaration DCBob Aug 2013 #64
The decision to drop the bomb melm00se Aug 2013 #65
Regardless - the indiscriminate slaughter and maiming of tens of thousands with one bomb is amoral ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #66
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An overlooked A-bomb issu...»Reply #36