I would happily link you to them, but I don’t remember where the links were as I was using the university’s database that linked me to the actual military transcripts.
I’m almost even quoting it word for word, but dankmemes you may be correct. The way the transcripts read is that they were leaning but weren’t for sure going to so it could only be argued that the second atomic bomb could may have not been necessary, not that it WASNT necessary, if that clarifies.
( Also idk why npr would state that when other places have also confirmed it too. Most confusing. )
… wikipedia isn’t a reliable ‘source’.
E: Actually, to clarify my statement as I look over more documents. My statement was that the US intelligence knew ( the cryptologists, the decoders who intercept messages ) but apparently this information wasn’t relayed further up to Washington.
It’s honestly a healthy read and part of a bigger political controversy to make FDR look bad ( back then )
"While the controversies raged, a quiet professor toiled in the history department of
the University of Maryland. Gordon Prange had served as an Army historian on the staff
of Douglas MacArthur in Japan and had developed a passion for the Pearl Harbor
controversy. But Prange never could get around to publishing his views, and he died in
1980 with a pile of manuscripts but no published books. After his death two of his former
students sorted through the collection and published At Dawn We Slept in 1981 and Pearl
Harbor: The Verdict of History in 1985. Prange had done his research before NSA
released its World War II archives and his coauthors decided not to do further research.
The best of the two is the latter. In detailed and often brilliant analysis, Prange
showed that the burden of blame rested in Hawaii, not Washington. Mistakes were made
in both locations, but the War and Navy Departments had placed the primary
responsibility on the shoulders of the theater commanders. Those in Hawaii had failed.
Though they did not have all the relevant diplomatic intercepts, they should not have
needed them. Purple and JN-19 did not contain direct military information. Only JN-25
did, and it was unsolved. Enough had been passed to. Honolulu to have made even the
most taciturn commander edgy. Kimmel and Short were not on the alert. They should
have been.
Prange also ruminated over the art of intelligence analysis as it was practiced in
1941. The failure of intelligence was not one of collection. There was plenty of collection.
The failure was one of interpretation. ~o matter how detailed the information available,
“there is no substitute for imagination and resourcefulness … " (p. 556). It was not the
technicians of the Army’s Signal Intelligence Service and the Navy’s OP-20-G who were
to blame. It was the American approach to intelligence.”
Its a cool story, but lacks any form of solid evidence and only 2nd hand witnesses. Which is why its considered a fringe theory. A group of books written by known FDR haters is not evidence. MAYBE someone in the US intelligence community had an idea of what was going to happen, but no one allowed it to happen intentionally. Their wasnt some huge plot to start a war with Japan to end the depression. Thats reaching, really reaching for a way to vilify the US.
Also about the nukes, the first bomb was absolutely necessary for a Japanese surrender, the 2nd was required for a Japanese disarmament. The US was never gonna settle for Japan just giving us, they needed to do so unconditionally. In my honest opinion, the 2nd bomb was nothing short of a waste and a bogus show of force.
Hello everyone , as a lover of history and politics and all that , i am glad this thread was made .
First of all , all the mentioned is my personal opinion , so if you have an another opinion than it’s fine but it won’t mean I am mistaken because it’s different .
Second point , we should know what exactly is a war , a war is a conflict that happen when two sides fall to reach an agreement politically, so when a side hurts an another side interests .
Third point , the two sides who fought in the war are in mainly for their interests , and if the alies care about the morals that much they wouldn’t have allowed Hilter to grow Especially that they made many deals with him , and only alies declared war when they felt they will lose their own balance of power to the Germans .
Fourth point , both sides did equally make crimes , killing 100 or 10000 or 100000 is killing , no difference , as much as axis mads crimes alies did crimes as replies which doesn’t make them better .
Fifth point , wars and conflicts is the nature of this world , it has been since thousands and thousands of years and it will always be , so instead of deciding who is the evil and good side, we should study why this war happened and try avoid the reasons which is as shown , no one is .
Sixth point , Japan did ton of bad stuff , it’s known , but if USA bomb them with Nuclear isn’t it killing aswell ? From when is killing decided by ways? A kill is a kill no matter how , both sides are equally bad because the two sides didn’t treat the others differently .
Final point , you have two options , either you understand a war is a war and war crimes happen and stop deciding whi is good and bad , or you keep on being politically navie and go on useless discussions about the good and bad .
Thanks for reading .
It is a 100% known fact that scaring the soviets was an intentional part of dropping the bombs. It was to end the war in Japan of course, but it was also to scare the Soviet Union. Almost every historian agrees on this
Thats just not true. Many Historians agree that the Soviets has something to do with the 2nd bomb, but their is plenty of disagreement about whether US high command actually had that in mind or not. August 6th, the first bomb was dropped. A few hours after the first bomb was dropped, Truman threatened Japan with the 2nd bomb, an entire day before the Soviets declared war on Japan.
Its a relatively new theory that the 2nd bomb was dropped to deter the soviets, but their is no solid evidence to suggest this is the case. What we do have solid evidence on is that fact that after the first bomb, the Japanese military was not ready to surrender unconditionally to the US. The 2nd bomb was used to make Japan think we had an arsenal of them and that we would burn their cities with hellfire one at a time until they gave in.
If you know of any documented intelligence pointing to the US wanting to deter the Soviets, feel free to share. Cause I have never seen any first hand data, only conjecture and assumption.
@Real-naffo Its clear you know nothing about war, so I wont even bother trying to break that down.
Lol as you wish bro , i didn’t ask anyone for a break down , the things i mentioned are my personal opinion and judging from your ols argument’s i wasn’t surprised .
The point was not to deter them from starting a nuclear program, they already had one. NKVD spies knew what was going on. It was to further allied position in western europe, especially germany
No, the revisionist theory is that the US nuked Japan to deter the soviets from starting another war with the allied powers, not from starting a nuclear program. My point is that while it is completely possible and probable that the US dropped the 2nd bomb because of the soviets, their is no documented evidence of it. So it isnt fact, its a well believed theory.
It can be figured out pretty easily. Eisenhower hated the idea of it, and Commander in chief of the navy kept telling Truman that naval blockade would bring about unconditional surrender soon. Based on information available I personally believe 1 bomb was enough, and I won’t criticize the dropping of it to save American lives. However the timing of the drop + statements from generals to Truman shows clearly that there was a reason Truman decided to drop the second bomb that was separate form getting Japan to surrender. Negotiations at that point had already shown that if the terms of the surrender were changed to allow the emperor to stay in power, they would surrender. The U.S ended up doing that anyway, which perplexes me.
One of the biggest pieces of evidence to show that the second bomb was dropped to show force to the Soviets is the secratary of state at the time, Byrnes. Everyone knew he wanted to end the war before the russians joined the war, including the Secretary of the Navy Forrestal, who wrote in his diary how often Byrnes was pushing for that.
And then, Byrnes was constantly worried about Soviet control of Manchuria, and parts of Japan, and warned that the soviets would not let go of states like hungary, poland, and romania in Eastern Europe, so they would likely try to get a stake in Japan.
Following this, even though the Soviets were supposed to enter the war on the 8th of August, talks with Stalin were postponed, and then the bomb was dropped on the 9th. We don’t know everything because Byrnes himself destroyed some documents, and rewrote the private diary of his assistant, before passing it off as authentic. So it is clear that there was an ulterior motive here
It makes sense from every angle to be honest , especially that at the end the west powers main goals were to reach Berlin before Soviet , and a saying that i heard that Churchill said ( we killed the wrong pigs ) , it was clear west already shifted focus to the Soviet Union and support the theory of the 2nd bomb drop .
I agree with you. But I dont call something fact unless it has well documented evidence. What is clear as day to us could very easily be fogged by time and war.
Yeah my point was never to vilify ( I don’t really think false flag attacks are necessarily villainous… just shady practice. ) but more like stating it was known to US intelligence that pearl harbor was likely to be imminently attacked. At least from the transcripts I had read way back when. The transcripts never specified if Washington received them or not, but just that they were reports prior to it happening that could have lead to a better reaction on the ground, but didn’t. I never knew the whole conspiracy to defame and attack FDR, but that seems like a related but separate issue
What transcripts say the U.S knew they were going to attack Pearl Harbor? The U.S did know the Japanese were making military preparations, but they thought it would be an attack on the Phillipines, so they sent planes to scout out the area looking for fleets. However of course since the Japanese were approaching pearl harbor from the North East they never saw them.
To clarify my statement, again, I said ‘They were likely’ ( does not mean they WILL ) and in the above links I posted if you actually care to read, it does say multiple times that there were confirmed reports of the Japanese looking at the Philippines, Guam, and Pearl Harbor…
It is not saying they WILL attack, it is saying those are the likely places to be attacked if conflict actually happens… and there are confirmed reports of the Japanese moving a fleet into the pacific ( though not spotted on our side of the pacific ).
The transcripts I’m talking about are a part of the NSA’s declassified documents released in the last ten years. Unfortunately I cannot find the links directly here, because when I found them way back when for my research paper it was using the uni’s provided database that linked directly to the pdf file for nsa.gov ( somewhat like the above link I gave ). so again, wish I could share exactly what I’m talking about, but unfortunately I can’t find them after looking for a couple hours now. Perhaps you can if you’re so interested to prove/disprove.
this is also what my statement is saying. Perhaps you are interpreting it wrong but I am saying that due to the way the US intelligence and cryptology worked at the time ( the process of decoding, translating, and forwarding msges of the enemy ) that it wasn’t efficient and that even though the US intelligence DID know they were likely to be imminently attacked at Pearl Harbor, this information was not processed or forwarded correctly which lead to it never reaching higher up in the chain of command, until afterwards. If you look deep, you can find documents talking about two officers (though it is also said these men were scapegoated) being relieved of their positions and rank due to this.
no, the conspiracy theory was that FDR purposely withheld information, or ignored information, so that the US could have an excuse to get into the war.
I am saying that the US intelligence had reason to believe that the base would be attacked, and that the information didn’t get put further up the chain, as actually that document from the nsa even states, if you took the time to read it.
