Garry Wills on Charlie Rose. Quite an interesting interview. http://www.charlierose.com/ a prolific author, journalist, and historian specializing in American politics, American political history Gary Wills begins his provocative account of the atomic bomb's impact on the republic with a high-detonation assertion. "The Bomb," he writes, "altered our subsequent history down to its deepest constitutional roots," redefining the presidency in ways that the Constitution does not intend. "It fostered an anxiety of continuing crisis, so that society was pervasively militarized. It redefined the government as a National Security State, with an apparatus of secrecy and executive control. It redefined Congress, as an executor of the executive."

Ummm.....

Could be, but one thing it did for sure was to save 2500,000 American lives and over 1,000,000 of the Japanese.

Those were the expected number of deaths from the invasion of Japan for the first week.

The total number of Japanese dead was estimated to be at least 5,000,000 before they would surrender. US dead was estimated at 1,500,000.

The total number of Allied troops to be committed to the invasion of Japan (front line troops only) was 5,000,000. The number of support personnel was estimated at 15,000,000.

The invasion of Japan was scheduled for November 1, 1945 and was expected to last until 1951.

I don't know what kind of expert Mr. Willis is in this matter, but these figures came from an interview with Henry L. Stimson who was Sec. of War at the time. You may read the interview in the Feb. 1947 issue of Harpers' Magazine.

Did he dispute that in the interview? The interview focus was on subsequent history of and redefining the presidency in ways that the Constitution does not intend. "redefined the government as a National Security State, with an apparatus of secrecy and executive control. It redefined Congress, as an executor of the executive."

yes, i noticed that rather odd reply. me fears he doth protesteth too much?

also, he reminds us that the "defense" dept. is a new term; they used to call it what it really was back then - "dept. of war"

but yes, dropping the nukers, for whatever reasons, certainly changed the mindset. certainly worked as intimidation - but who exactly were they trying
to scare?

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

mr stimsom is the ultimate authority, as per whom?

and how about the negotiations that were already in progress?

remember, history is written by the victors. (well, at least initially. )

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Negoations were in process and had been for four months. The Japanese just kept stalling and stalling.

After the first bomb was dropped the Japanese replied to Allied surrender demands with an ambigious term that could be interpeted as "No" or "I am thinking about it".

Two days later the US gave them some more food for thought.

As for Willis assertions: you have to know what the US was like before the use of the bomb. Isolltationist were the rule, but when it was clear that if the US could attack other countiries with this weapon then it was just a matter of time before other countries could attack us.

This caused a change in the national mindset, but I don't see where it caused any big changes otherwise.

More Japanese died in Tokyo on the night of March 9th, 1945 than were killed in Hirosima and Nagasaki combined. That was probably a field command decision by Gen LeMay, but Roosevelt may have had the final say so.
But what's the difference if it was firebombing or nuclear weapons. I don't understand his point. If LeMay or Truman had ordered Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be firebombed to kingdom come instead of being nuked, would that make a difference in his POV of US becoming a "National Security State"??

The firebombing was a last attempt to force the Japanese to surrender before the use of the bomb. They refused and prepaired for an invasions.

The Japanese were speaking with the Russians about a surrender that would allow them to keep 'some' territory. They wanted to keep China, Formosa, Korea, Manchuria, Veit-nam, Thailand, Buma and what they vaguly refered to as 'The East Indies' which they made clear included the Phillipines. These terms were considered by the Allies as 'unacceptable'.

The Sec. of War, Stimson, said it was not the dropping of the bombs that caused their surrender. It was the threat to drop more. An invasion they could deal with, but this atom bomb thing was just too overwhelming.

I don't know if Willis is correct about the bomb changing the way the DOD does business, but Air Power sure did. The Japanese biggest problem at the end was that they had none.

Some historians argue that part of the reason the bombs where dropped was to accelerate the surrender of the Japanese before Russia got involved in the war with the Japanese and had a claim to the war spoils.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I suspect it was more of a demonstration of power to Russia; i.e., the opening "shot" of the cold war.

ya think?

(that "saving our brave boys" line is getting old, isn't it)

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."