On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:14:36?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > > > It was interesting to see in the Dresden Transport Museum, pictures of
> > > > Dresden after the allied air raid shown alongside pictures of London and
> > > > Coventry following the German air raids.
> > > Certainly, all sides engaged in it.
> > > (and it was Churchill who started it, with a raid on Berlin)
> > > However, even English historians agree that Coventry
> > > was a legitimate target.
> > > (lots of millitary industry, engines, munitions, etc.)
> > > For the London docklands, idem.
> > And if Coventry Cathedral hadn't been destroyed, we wouldn't have
> > Britten's *War Requiem*.
>
> Perhaps, but he could have had written it,
> and have it performed somewhere else, some other time.
> Much of the text is WWI, by Wilfred Owen.
> Britten's pacifism wasn't tied to any particular war,

Which English cathedral would you prefer they had bombed instead?

Less "futility of war" poetry came out of 1939-45 because circumstances
were different. It came to be called the Good War (Terkel) Over Here, and
those who experienced it the Greatest Generation (Brokaw) -- in light of
what followed over the next three decades,

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:45:36 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
> > On 25/07/2023 21:45, charles wrote:
> > > In article <1qefwai.1lntnzr1o0vjo5N%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> >
> > >
> > >>> The war would have staggered on with millions more being killed without
> > >>> Oppenheimer's contribution.
> > >
> > >> Yes, that's what you like to believe. Another view is that the war (in
> > >> the Far East) was dragged out unnecessarily in order to have the
> > >> opportunity to have those live weapons tests,

When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?

Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine that they
had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the Trinity test, and the
Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it sounds as if you're saying
the war was dragged out by three weeks or less.

> > > My son-in-law's mother was brought up in a concentration camp in the Dutch
> > > East Indies. I had an uncle in a POW camp in Singapore,, I don't believe
> > > that point of view.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure which of the two views you don't believe in?

> I assumed that it was my point of view that charles didn't agree with.

> > - That the war would have dragged on without the bomb? It probably
> > wouldn't have. All the indications were that the Japanese were on the
> > brink of surrender anyway.

> Yes.

No, they were divided.

> It was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> that left the Japanese no choice.

The evidence suggests that both the bomb and the USSR were the reasons,
unless you have evidence that the bomb had little or no effect on the
decision.

> Less appreciated is that it also left the Americans no choice.
> (even if the bomb hadn't been ready)
>
> Having the Soviets occupy the Northern half of Japan
> (and staying in occupation there practically forever)
> was far worse than not having the opportunity for a live weapons test.
>
> They just had to allow the Japanese to capitulate.
> So they came to terms very rapidly,
> including the unconditional condition of keeping Hirohito on.
....

When do you think the U.S. tell Japan that it accepted that condition?
I see no reason to think it was before the surrender. Do you have some
evidence on that?

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:52:29?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:14:36?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > It was interesting to see in the Dresden Transport Museum,
> > > > > pictures of Dresden after the allied air raid shown alongside
> > > > > pictures of London and Coventry following the German air raids.
> > > > Certainly, all sides engaged in it.
> > > > (and it was Churchill who started it, with a raid on Berlin)
> > > > However, even English historians agree that Coventry
> > > > was a legitimate target.
> > > > (lots of millitary industry, engines, munitions, etc.)
> > > > For the London docklands, idem.
> > > And if Coventry Cathedral hadn't been destroyed, we wouldn't have
> > > Britten's *War Requiem*.
> >
> > Perhaps, but he could have had written it,
> > and have it performed somewhere else, some other time.
> > Much of the text is WWI, by Wilfred Owen.
> > Britten's pacifism wasn't tied to any particular war,
>
> Which English cathedral would you prefer they had bombed instead?

The Royal Albert Hall for example is quite suitable
for performances of the War Requiem.
There really is no need for a rebuilt cathedral.

> Less "futility of war" poetry came out of 1939-45 because circumstances
> were different. It came to be called the Good War (Terkel) Over Here, and
> those who experienced it the Greatest Generation (Brokaw) -- in light of
> what followed over the next three decades,

The Brits have less need for singling out any single war
as 'the good war'.
The Americans must find it 'the good war'
because of some of the bad ones that followed,

Jan

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 26/07/2023 11:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25/07/2023 21:45, charles wrote:
> >>> In article <1qefwai.1lntnzr1o0vjo5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> The war would have staggered on with millions more being killed without
> >>>>> Oppenheimer's contribution.
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, that's what you like to believe. Another view is that the war (in
> >>>> the Far East) was dragged out unnecessarily in order to have the
> >>>> opportunity to have those live weapons tests,
> >>>
> >>> My son-in-law's mother was brought up in a concentration camp in the Dutch
> >>> East Indies. I had an uncle in a POW camp in Singapore,, I don't believe
> >>> that point of view.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am not sure which of the two views you don't believe in?
> >
> > I assumed that it was my point of view that charles didn't agree with.
> >
> >> - That the war would have dragged on without the bomb? It probably
> >> wouldn't have. All the indications were that the Japanese were on the
> >> brink of surrender anyway.
> >
> > Yes. It was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > that left the Japanese no choice.
> > Less appreciated is that it also left the Americans no choice.
> > (even if the bomb hadn't been ready)
> >
> > Having the Soviets occupy the Northern half of Japan
> > (and staying in occupation there practically forever)
> > was far worse than not having the opportunity for a live weapons test.
> >
> > They just had to allow the Japanese to capitulate.
> > So they came to terms very rapidly,
> > including the unconditional condition of keeping Hirohito on.
> >
> >> - That the US wanted to test the bomb, so they were keen on dropping it,
> >> especially on the eve of the Yalta Conference? Roosevelt wanted bragging
> >> rights in order to dominate Churchill and Stalin.
> >
> > Who already knew all about it,
> > (but you are mixing up presidents and conferences)
> >
> Yes, I should have said 'Potsdam'

And Truman.
We cannot know what Roosevelt would have done about the bomb.
(but I am convinced that he would have given it more thought)

Jan

Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:45:36?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> > > On 25/07/2023 21:45, charles wrote:
> > > > In article <1qefwai.1lntnzr1o0vjo5N%nos...@de-ster, J. J. Lodder
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>> The war would have staggered on with millions more being killed
> > > >>> without Oppenheimer's contribution.
> > > >
> > > >> Yes, that's what you like to believe. Another view is that the war (in
> > > >> the Far East) was dragged out unnecessarily in order to have the
> > > >> opportunity to have those live weapons tests,
>
> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
> reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
>
> Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine that they
> had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the Trinity test, and the
> Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it sounds as if you're saying
> the war was dragged out by three weeks or less.

Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
with people working all their waking hours.
The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
The Uranium bomb was even dropped without any testing.

> > > > My son-in-law's mother was brought up in a concentration camp in the
> > > > Dutch East Indies. I had an uncle in a POW camp in Singapore,, I
> > > > don't believe that point of view.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure which of the two views you don't believe in?
>
> > I assumed that it was my point of view that charles didn't agree with.
>
> > > - That the war would have dragged on without the bomb? It probably
> > > wouldn't have. All the indications were that the Japanese were on the
> > > brink of surrender anyway.
>
> > Yes.
>
> No, they were divided.

Until Hirohito decided the matter, then they were anonymous.
>
> > It was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > that left the Japanese no choice.
>
> The evidence suggests that both the bomb and the USSR were the reasons,
> unless you have evidence that the bomb had little or no effect on the
> decision.

Why do you think that the loss of yet another provincial town
would have any effect? They were already almost out of provincial towns.
And not even the worse destruction and loss of life in Tokyo itself,
right before the eyes of their leadership had not had any effect.

> > Less appreciated is that it also left the Americans no choice.
> > (even if the bomb hadn't been ready)
> >
> > Having the Soviets occupy the Northern half of Japan
> > (and staying in occupation there practically forever)
> > was far worse than not having the opportunity for a live weapons test.
> >
> > They just had to allow the Japanese to capitulate.
> > So they came to terms very rapidly,
> > including the unconditional condition of keeping Hirohito on.
> ...
>
> When do you think the U.S. tell Japan that it accepted that condition?

It is well known, and even in Wikipedia.
Summary: After long debates about conditions Hirohito
agreed with Togo's position that conditions should be reduced
to just one, keeping on Hirohito.
(Togo knew he was probably sacrificing himself)

Augut 10, Japanese telegram to State dept. by way of Switzerland:
will accept Potsdam on condition that the the Emperor stays.
Augugt 12, Reply by Byrnes, after consultation with the Allies:
(again by way of Switzerland)
OK, stays, but the power of the Emperor to rule Japan will be subject
to the supreme commander of the Allied Forces.
(and as for Hirohito in person, future, democracy, Japanese decide,
blahblah)

So there you are, all faces saved, Japan surrenders unconditionally
on condition that...

> I see no reason to think it was before the surrender. Do you have some
> evidence on that?

See Wikipedia, or any of the many history books about it.

Jan

On 26-Jul-23 9:14, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> TonyCooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:21:51 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25-Jul-23 13:28, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-07-25 11:37:45 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-07-25 10:00:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-07-25 08:36:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TonyCooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:52:51 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Latest word to be coined is Barbenheimer. It's the fusion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> two film names. One ridiculous and the other sublime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your observation may be met with agreement by all in this group,
>>>>>>>>>>> but there are forums where one would be "Must see" and the other
>>>>>>>>>>> "Boring" with the positive reactions switched from yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They're not around to ask, but I wonder if my grandsons (18 & 19)
>>>>>>>>>>> would have any idea who J. Robert Oppenheimer was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Large coverage of Oppenheimer in a Dutch quality newspaper this
>>>>>>>>>> weekend, including photographs of one his visits to Leiden and
>>>>>>>>>> Utrecht. (travelling with PAM Dirac, who was the guest of honour)
>>>>>>>>>> Oppenheimer immediately stands out because of his peculiar
>>>>>>>>>> haircut.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In pictures of Oppenheimer that I've seen his haircut looks quite
>>>>>>>>> normal for an American of his time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here he is.
>>>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Leiden_Kamerlingh-
> Onn
>>>> es
>>>>>> _Lab.jpg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can try to find him,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would guess that he was the middle one at the front -- next to the
>>>>>>> tall bearded one. Quite a lot like my housemaster in the 150s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alas, that is not the right answer.
>>>>>> The tall bearded man is Adriaan Fokker. [1]
>>>>>> The one to his left is Hendrik Casimir. [2]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try again. Hint, Oppie is standing next to Paul Dirac.
>>>>>> (that very British looking person)
>>>>>
>>>>> Second from the left in the second row?
>>>>
>>>> That's him. He has what is called in flowery Dutch a 'bloempotkapsel',
>>>> more prosaically in English a bowl cut.
>>>> (with much unruly hair above the cut)
>>>>
>>>>> I've never thought that Paul Dirac was very British-looking (and anyway he
>>>>> was almost as Swiss as he was British).
>>>
>>> I looked carefully at the photograph, if only to see what JJ thought to
>>> be a "very British-looking" person.
>>> I got nowhere and even now, knowing which one is Dirac, I can't see any
>>> distinguishing elements.
>>
>> The lips, Sam, look for the stiff upper ones.
>
> Yes, and with a moustache to cover it up,

Shirley? If your lip is admirably stiff, you would want everyone to
recognise this.
You would not hide it behind foliage[1].

[1] I have a shower sponge which claims to "exfoliate".
Are there many people who covered in leaves?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:54:41 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:52:29?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:14:36?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > > > > > It was interesting to see in the Dresden Transport Museum,
> > > > > > pictures of Dresden after the allied air raid shown alongside
> > > > > > pictures of London and Coventry following the German air raids.
> > > > > Certainly, all sides engaged in it.
> > > > > (and it was Churchill who started it, with a raid on Berlin)
> > > > > However, even English historians agree that Coventry
> > > > > was a legitimate target.
> > > > > (lots of millitary industry, engines, munitions, etc.)
> > > > > For the London docklands, idem.
> > > > And if Coventry Cathedral hadn't been destroyed, we wouldn't have
> > > > Britten's *War Requiem*.
> > > Perhaps, but he could have had written it,
> > > and have it performed somewhere else, some other time.
> > > Much of the text is WWI, by Wilfred Owen.
> > > Britten's pacifism wasn't tied to any particular war,
> > Which English cathedral would you prefer they had bombed instead?
>
> The Royal Albert Hall for example is quite suitable
> for performances of the War Requiem.
> There really is no need for a rebuilt cathedral.

Along with everything else, apparently you do not understand how
commissions of musical works work. Especially large-scale ones.

> > Less "futility of war" poetry came out of 1939-45 because circumstances
> > were different. It came to be called the Good War (Terkel) Over Here, and
> > those who experienced it the Greatest Generation (Brokaw) -- in light of
> > what followed over the next three decades,
>
> The Brits have less need for singling out any single war
> as 'the good war'.

? Churchill made a rather big deal about it, frequently.

> The Americans must find it 'the good war'
> because of some of the bad ones that followed,

That is what I said.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 21:54:35 +0200
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:52:29?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:14:36?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > It was interesting to see in the Dresden Transport Museum,
> > > > > > pictures of Dresden after the allied air raid shown alongside
> > > > > > pictures of London and Coventry following the German air raids.
> > > > > Certainly, all sides engaged in it.
> > > > > (and it was Churchill who started it, with a raid on Berlin)
> > > > > However, even English historians agree that Coventry
> > > > > was a legitimate target.
> > > > > (lots of millitary industry, engines, munitions, etc.)
> > > > > For the London docklands, idem.
> > > > And if Coventry Cathedral hadn't been destroyed, we wouldn't have
> > > > Britten's *War Requiem*.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but he could have had written it,
> > > and have it performed somewhere else, some other time.
> > > Much of the text is WWI, by Wilfred Owen.
> > > Britten's pacifism wasn't tied to any particular war,
> >
> > Which English cathedral would you prefer they had bombed instead?
>
> The Royal Albert Hall for example is quite suitable
> for performances of the War Requiem.
> There really is no need for a rebuilt cathedral.
>
> > Less "futility of war" poetry came out of 1939-45 because circumstances
> > were different. It came to be called the Good War (Terkel) Over Here, and
> > those who experienced it the Greatest Generation (Brokaw) -- in light of
> > what followed over the next three decades,
>
> The Brits have less need for singling out any single war
> as 'the good war'.
> The Americans must find it 'the good war'
> because of some of the bad ones that followed,
>
It might be argued that part of the problem was caused by major US
investment in German industry in the 1930's.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Wednesday, J. J. Lodder quipped:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

[lots of setup]
>> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
>> reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
>>
>> Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine that
>> they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the Trinity test,
>> and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it sounds as if you're
>> saying the war was dragged out by three weeks or less.
>
> Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945

For the Trinity bomb, the theory of the detonator was settled, but they
still had to prove it was buildable. There were issues with both
explosive manufacturing with few enough bubbles and the issue getting
all the ingition wires to work in a small enough delta-t, so were they
sure the bomb was buildable before Trinity?

> From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> with people working all their waking hours.
> The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)

Much bigger than predicted, it seems.

> The Uranium bomb was even dropped without any testing.
>

[more of the political side elided]

/dps

--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> Wednesday, J. J. Lodder quipped:
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [lots of setup]
> >> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
> >> reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
> >> Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine that
> >> they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the Trinity test,
> >> and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it sounds as if you're
> >> saying the war was dragged out by three weeks or less.
> > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
>
> For the Trinity bomb, the theory of the detonator was settled, but they
> still had to prove it was buildable. There were issues with both
> explosive manufacturing with few enough bubbles and the issue getting
> all the ingition wires to work in a small enough delta-t, so were they
> sure the bomb was buildable before Trinity?
>
> > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > with people working all their waking hours.
> > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
>
> Much bigger than predicted, it seems.

Fred Kaplan pointed out on WNYC yesterday morning that when
considering the effects of the bomb, they considered nothing
but the blast itself -- not the long-term effect of radiation poisoning,
of fallout, etc. (He's written two books on the topic, 20 years apart.)

> > The Uranium bomb was even dropped without any testing.
>
> [more of the political side elided]

Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wednesday, J. J. Lodder quipped:
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [lots of setup]
> >> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
> >> reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
> >>
> >> Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine that
> >> they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the Trinity test,
> >> and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it sounds as if you're
> >> saying the war was dragged out by three weeks or less.
> >
> > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
>
> For the Trinity bomb, the theory of the detonator was settled, but they
> still had to prove it was buildable. There were issues with both
> explosive manufacturing with few enough bubbles and the issue getting
> all the ingition wires to work in a small enough delta-t, so were they
> sure the bomb was buildable before Trinity?

They had done lots of experiments with all those aspects.
And no, physicists will never admit to being sure,
not even about the entire atmosphere not being ignited.

> > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > with people working all their waking hours.
> > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
>
> Much bigger than predicted, it seems.

Depends on who you asked.
There was an unnamed menber of Segre's team who had it just right,
at 20 kiloton. Segre himself arrived at 8 kiloton.

They had a betting pool. Rabi won, at 18 kiloton,
because he arrived last and had to take the only number
that no one else had taken.
Oppie was conservative, at a few kiloton,
Teller was the most optimistic, at 45 kiloton.

Jan

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:45:36?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 25/07/2023 21:45, charles wrote:
> > > > > In article <1qefwai.1lntnzr1o0vjo5N%nos...@de-ster, J. J. Lodder
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>> The war would have staggered on with millions more being killed
> > > > >>> without Oppenheimer's contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Yes, that's what you like to believe. Another view is that the war (in
> > > > >> the Far East) was dragged out unnecessarily in order to have the
> > > > >> opportunity to have those live weapons tests,
> >
> > When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
> > reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
> >
> > Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine that they
> > had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the Trinity test, and the
> > Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it sounds as if you're saying
> > the war was dragged out by three weeks or less.

> Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945

Clear enough to the leaders to determine the American war strategy?

> From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> with people working all their waking hours.
> The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
> The Uranium bomb was even dropped without any testing.

OK, but you still haven't provided any evidence that any American leader wanted
to prolong the war in order to test the bombs.

> > > > > My son-in-law's mother was brought up in a concentration camp in the
> > > > > Dutch East Indies. I had an uncle in a POW camp in Singapore,, I
> > > > > don't believe that point of view.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure which of the two views you don't believe in?
> >
> > > I assumed that it was my point of view that charles didn't agree with..
> >
> > > > - That the war would have dragged on without the bomb? It probably
> > > > wouldn't have. All the indications were that the Japanese were on the
> > > > brink of surrender anyway.
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > No, they were divided.

> Until Hirohito decided the matter, then they were anonymous.

The sort of error that native speakers produce, often with the help of
autocorrect.

And they were not unanimous. There was that attempted coup.

> > > It was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > > that left the Japanese no choice.
> >
> > The evidence suggests that both the bomb and the USSR were the reasons,
> > unless you have evidence that the bomb had little or no effect on the
> > decision.

> Why do you think that the loss of yet another provincial town
> would have any effect? They were already almost out of provincial towns.
> And not even the worse destruction and loss of life in Tokyo itself,
> right before the eyes of their leadership had not had any effect.

Because it was a new and horrible kind of weapon, which in itself had a
strong effect on the leadership, and also was a better excuse for ending
the war than what Japan had already been through. As Admiral Yonai
said to Hirohito,

"I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry
into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that
we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances."

> > > Less appreciated is that it also left the Americans no choice.
> > > (even if the bomb hadn't been ready)
> > >
> > > Having the Soviets occupy the Northern half of Japan
> > > (and staying in occupation there practically forever)
> > > was far worse than not having the opportunity for a live weapons test..
> > >
> > > They just had to allow the Japanese to capitulate.
> > > So they came to terms very rapidly,
> > > including the unconditional condition of keeping Hirohito on.
> > ...
> >
> > When do you think the U.S. tell Japan that it accepted that condition?
> It is well known, and even in Wikipedia.

> Summary: After long debates about conditions Hirohito
> agreed with Togo's position that conditions should be reduced
> to just one, keeping on Hirohito.
> (Togo knew he was probably sacrificing himself)
>
> Augut 10, Japanese telegram to State dept. by way of Switzerland:
> will accept Potsdam on condition that the the Emperor stays.
> Augugt 12, Reply by Byrnes, after consultation with the Allies:
> (again by way of Switzerland)
> OK, stays, but the power of the Emperor to rule Japan will be subject
> to the supreme commander of the Allied Forces.
> (and as for Hirohito in person, future, democracy, Japanese decide,
> blahblah)
....

Thanks, I should have seen that.

However, all I see in Byrnes's reply is a weak implication that Hirohito
would temporarily retain his role, subject to the supreme Allied commander..
Hirohito and his adviser don't seem to have felt assured that Hirohito
would never be tried for war crimes.

"Prior to this meeting [the first one between Hirohito and MacArthur],
intimate court sources tell us, Hirohito had been tense and uncertain.
Bowers noticed that he was trembling when he arrived (the /New York Times/
interviewer of a day earlier had made a similar observation). He left the
meeting buoyed in spirit, visibly more relaxed and confident--obviously with
good reason. The emperor immediately told Kido Koichi about the
compliments MacArthur had paid him, and Kido was immensely relieved.
As he later noted, if this meeting had not occurred, it would have been
exceedingly difficult to defend the emperor against charges of war crimes."

--John W. Dower, /Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II/
(2000)

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 8:42:34 PM UTC-6, Jerry Friedman wrote:
....

Footnotes:
> However, all I see in Byrnes's reply is a weak implication that Hirohito
> would temporarily retain his role, subject to the supreme Allied commander.
> Hirohito and his adviser don't seem to have felt assured that Hirohito
> would never be tried for war crimes.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v06/d412

> "Prior to this meeting [the first one between Hirohito and MacArthur],
> intimate court sources tell us, Hirohito had been tense and uncertain.
> Bowers noticed that he was trembling when he arrived (the /New York Times/
> interviewer of a day earlier had made a similar observation). He left the
> meeting buoyed in spirit, visibly more relaxed and confident--obviously with
> good reason. The emperor immediately told Kido Koichi about the
> compliments MacArthur had paid him, and Kido was immensely relieved.
> As he later noted, if this meeting had not occurred, it would have been
> exceedingly difficult to defend the emperor against charges of war crimes.."
>
> --John W. Dower, /Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II/
> (2000)

https://books.google.com/books?id=hae0dC_NaiUC&pg=PA297

--
Jerry Friedman

Sam Plusnet wrote:

>>>> I got nowhere and even now, knowing which one is Dirac, I can't see any
>>>> distinguishing elements.
>>>
>>> The lips, Sam, look for the stiff upper ones.
>>
>> Yes, and with a moustache to cover it up,
>
> Shirley? If your lip is admirably stiff, you would want everyone to
> recognise this.

But maybe it isn't stiff because he can't control it? That would be an
excellent reason for an English man to grow a moustache.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:46:24?PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> > Wednesday, J. J. Lodder quipped:
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [lots of setup]
> > >> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for
> > >> that reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in
> > >> mind? Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly
> > >> imagine that they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of
> > >> the Trinity test, and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so
> > >> it sounds as if you're saying the war was dragged out by three weeks
> > >> or less.
> > > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
> >
> > For the Trinity bomb, the theory of the detonator was settled, but they
> > still had to prove it was buildable. There were issues with both
> > explosive manufacturing with few enough bubbles and the issue getting
> > all the ingition wires to work in a small enough delta-t, so were they
> > sure the bomb was buildable before Trinity?
> >
> > > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > > with people working all their waking hours.
> > > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
> >
> > Much bigger than predicted, it seems.
>
> Fred Kaplan pointed out on WNYC yesterday morning that when
> considering the effects of the bomb, they considered nothing
> but the blast itself -- not the long-term effect of radiation poisoning,
> of fallout, etc. (He's written two books on the topic, 20 years apart.)

I've seen the second one, not read yet.
But it is about all those little Strangeloves
and their generals and presidents who came after that.

To be fair, those in charge at Los Alamos
also didn't consider radiation effects upon themselves.
And they suffered the consequences. A disproportional number
of those at Los Alamos died from various forms of cancer.
(but not Groves)
Feynman, as always, outdid them all, also in this.
He died from a combination of several very rare forms of cancer.
Feynman had watched the Trinity test out in the open
with truck windshield as radiation protection.

There is also a well-known photograph of Oppenheimer and Groves
inspecting the Trinity test site shortly after the blast.
For radiation protection they are wearing... cotton shoe covers.
(you wouldn't want your nice shoes made unusable by getting
highly radioactive sand in them, eh?)

Jan

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:41:35 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:46:24?PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> > > Wednesday, J. J. Lodder quipped:
> > > > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [lots of setup]
> > > >> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for
> > > >> that reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in
> > > >> mind? Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly
> > > >> imagine that they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of
> > > >> the Trinity test, and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so
> > > >> it sounds as if you're saying the war was dragged out by three weeks
> > > >> or less.
> > > > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > > > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
> > >
> > > For the Trinity bomb, the theory of the detonator was settled, but they
> > > still had to prove it was buildable. There were issues with both
> > > explosive manufacturing with few enough bubbles and the issue getting
> > > all the ingition wires to work in a small enough delta-t, so were they
> > > sure the bomb was buildable before Trinity?
> > >
> > > > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > > > with people working all their waking hours.
> > > > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > > > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
> > >
> > > Much bigger than predicted, it seems.
> >
> > Fred Kaplan pointed out on WNYC yesterday morning that when
> > considering the effects of the bomb, they considered nothing
> > but the blast itself -- not the long-term effect of radiation poisoning,
> > of fallout, etc. (He's written two books on the topic, 20 years apart.)
>
> I've seen the second one, not read yet.
> But it is about all those little Strangeloves
> and their generals and presidents who came after that.
>
> To be fair, those in charge at Los Alamos
> also didn't consider radiation effects upon themselves.
> And they suffered the consequences. A disproportional number
> of those at Los Alamos died from various forms of cancer.
> (but not Groves)

It now comes to light that when Congress enacted legislation
to compensate long-term victims of bomb tests (e.g. in Micronesia),
they excluded those downwind from Los Alamos, and their descendants
are looking for reparations for their lives, and their destroyed farmland
and livestock.

> Feynman, as always, outdid them all, also in this.
> He died from a combination of several very rare forms of cancer.
> Feynman had watched the Trinity test out in the open
> with truck windshield as radiation protection.
>
> There is also a well-known photograph of Oppenheimer and Groves
> inspecting the Trinity test site shortly after the blast.
> For radiation protection they are wearing... cotton shoe covers.
> (you wouldn't want your nice shoes made unusable by getting
> highly radioactive sand in them, eh?)

On 27-Jul-23 7:12, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>  Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>>>> I got nowhere and even now, knowing which one is Dirac, I can't see
>>>>> any
>>>>> distinguishing elements.
>>>>
>>>> The lips, Sam, look for the stiff upper ones.
>>>
>>> Yes, and with a moustache to cover it up,
>>
>> Shirley? If your lip is admirably stiff, you would want everyone to
>> recognise this.
>
> But maybe it isn't stiff because he can't control it? That would be an
> excellent reason for an English man to grow a moustache.
>

For fear of being mistaken for some kind of foreigner?
That does sound credible.

--
Sam Plusnet

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 21:54:35 +0200
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:52:29?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:14:36?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > It was interesting to see in the Dresden Transport Museum,
> > > > > > > pictures of Dresden after the allied air raid shown alongside
> > > > > > > pictures of London and Coventry following the German air raids.
> > > > > > Certainly, all sides engaged in it.
> > > > > > (and it was Churchill who started it, with a raid on Berlin)
> > > > > > However, even English historians agree that Coventry
> > > > > > was a legitimate target.
> > > > > > (lots of millitary industry, engines, munitions, etc.)
> > > > > > For the London docklands, idem.
> > > > > And if Coventry Cathedral hadn't been destroyed, we wouldn't have
> > > > > Britten's *War Requiem*.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps, but he could have had written it,
> > > > and have it performed somewhere else, some other time.
> > > > Much of the text is WWI, by Wilfred Owen.
> > > > Britten's pacifism wasn't tied to any particular war,
> > >
> > > Which English cathedral would you prefer they had bombed instead?
> >
> > The Royal Albert Hall for example is quite suitable
> > for performances of the War Requiem.
> > There really is no need for a rebuilt cathedral.
> >
> > > Less "futility of war" poetry came out of 1939-45 because circumstances
> > > were different. It came to be called the Good War (Terkel) Over Here, and
> > > those who experienced it the Greatest Generation (Brokaw) -- in light of
> > > what followed over the next three decades,
> >
> > The Brits have less need for singling out any single war
> > as 'the good war'.
> > The Americans must find it 'the good war'
> > because of some of the bad ones that followed,
> >
> It might be argued that part of the problem was caused by major US
> investment in German industry in the 1930's.

Indeed. Americans don't want to know anymore
how pro-much pro-Greman, anti-British,
and anti-semitic sentiment there was in the US before 1940.
And many without to much those sentiments still felt
that Britain was going down the drain,
and that it wouldn't do to antagonise a winner.

Fortunately they had Roosevelt for president,
with a clearer view of what was needed and wanted,

Jan

Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:54:42?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:45:36?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 25/07/2023 21:45, charles wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1qefwai.1lntnzr1o0vjo5N%nos...@de-ster, J. J. Lodder
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> The war would have staggered on with millions more being killed
> > > > > >>> without Oppenheimer's contribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Yes, that's what you like to believe. Another view is that the
> > > > > >> war (in the Far East) was dragged out unnecessarily in order to
> > > > > >> have the opportunity to have those live weapons tests,
> > >
> > > When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
> > > reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
> > >
> > > Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine
> > > that they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the
> > > Trinity test, and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it
> > > sounds as if you're saying the war was dragged out by three weeks or
> > > less.
>
> > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
>
> Clear enough to the leaders to determine the American war strategy?

The bomb wasn't needed anyhow, by the estimates of Januari 1945.
At the rate at which bombing was going -all- middle-sized
Japanese cities would have ben flattened and burned
by september 1945.
In terms of city burning Hiroshima was a marginal contribution.
Using the bomb was an aim in itself.

> > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > with people working all their waking hours.
> > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
> > The Uranium bomb was even dropped without any testing.
>
> OK, but you still haven't provided any evidence that any American leader
> wanted to prolong the war in order to test the bombs.

[this is going to take too long]

> > > > > > My son-in-law's mother was brought up in a concentration camp in
> > > > > > the Dutch East Indies. I had an uncle in a POW camp in
> > > > > > Singapore,, I don't believe that point of view.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure which of the two views you don't believe in?
> > >
> > > > I assumed that it was my point of view that charles didn't agree with.
> > >
> > > > > - That the war would have dragged on without the bomb? It probably
> > > > > wouldn't have. All the indications were that the Japanese were on the
> > > > > brink of surrender anyway.
> > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > No, they were divided.
>
> > Until Hirohito decided the matter, then they were anonymous.
>
> The sort of error that native speakers produce, often with the help of
> autocorrect.
>
> And they were not unanimous. There was that attempted coup.
>
> > > > It was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > > > that left the Japanese no choice.
> > >
> > > The evidence suggests that both the bomb and the USSR were the reasons,
> > > unless you have evidence that the bomb had little or no effect on the
> > > decision.
>
> > Why do you think that the loss of yet another provincial town
> > would have any effect? They were already almost out of provincial towns.
> > And not even the worse destruction and loss of life in Tokyo itself,
> > right before the eyes of their leadership had not had any effect.
>
> Because it was a new and horrible kind of weapon, which in itself had a
> strong effect on the leadership, and also was a better excuse for ending
> the war than what Japan had already been through. As Admiral Yonai
> said to Hirohito,
>
> "I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry
> into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that
> we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances."

Hirohito spoke with two tongues.
For his population he emphasised the bomb,
in order not to talk about failures of leadership.
To generals and ministers he emphasised the Coming of the Soviets.

> > > > Less appreciated is that it also left the Americans no choice.
> > > > (even if the bomb hadn't been ready)
> > > >
> > > > Having the Soviets occupy the Northern half of Japan
> > > > (and staying in occupation there practically forever)
> > > > was far worse than not having the opportunity for a live weapons test.
> > > >
> > > > They just had to allow the Japanese to capitulate.
> > > > So they came to terms very rapidly,
> > > > including the unconditional condition of keeping Hirohito on.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > When do you think the U.S. tell Japan that it accepted that condition?
> > It is well known, and even in Wikipedia.
>
> > Summary: After long debates about conditions Hirohito
> > agreed with Togo's position that conditions should be reduced
> > to just one, keeping on Hirohito.
> > (Togo knew he was probably sacrificing himself)
> >
> > Augut 10, Japanese telegram to State dept. by way of Switzerland:
> > will accept Potsdam on condition that the the Emperor stays.
> > Augugt 12, Reply by Byrnes, after consultation with the Allies:
> > (again by way of Switzerland)
> > OK, stays, but the power of the Emperor to rule Japan will be subject
> > to the supreme commander of the Allied Forces.
> > (and as for Hirohito in person, future, democracy, Japanese decide,
> > blahblah)
> ...
>
> Thanks, I should have seen that.
>
> However, all I see in Byrnes's reply is a weak implication that Hirohito
> would temporarily retain his role, subject to the supreme Allied commander.
> Hirohito and his adviser don't seem to have felt assured that Hirohito
> would never be tried for war crimes.

Both were on untried ground.
Fortunately for all the Americans came to their senses in time.
If you demand unconditional surrender you destroy all local authority.
That means you have to run the country yourself.
There was no way that they could do that without using the existing
Japanese govt apparatus, hence they had to have Hirohito in place.
MacArthur saw that, and he immediately reassured Hirohito
that he had nothing to fear. (as long as he behaved)

Jan

[you saying the same]
> "Prior to this meeting [the first one between Hirohito and MacArthur],
> intimate court sources tell us, Hirohito had been tense and uncertain.
> Bowers noticed that he was trembling when he arrived (the /New York Times/
> interviewer of a day earlier had made a similar observation). He left the
> meeting buoyed in spirit, visibly more relaxed and confident--obviously with
> good reason. The emperor immediately told Kido Koichi about the
> compliments MacArthur had paid him, and Kido was immensely relieved.
> As he later noted, if this meeting had not occurred, it would have been
> exceedingly difficult to defend the emperor against charges of war crimes."
>
> --John W. Dower, /Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II/
> (2000)

Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:41:35?AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:46:24?PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> > > > Wednesday, J. J. Lodder quipped:
> > > > > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [lots of setup]
> > > > >> When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for
> > > > >> that reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in
> > > > >> mind? Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly
> > > > >> imagine that they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of
> > > > >> the Trinity test, and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so
> > > > >> it sounds as if you're saying the war was dragged out by three weeks
> > > > >> or less.
> > > > > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > > > > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
> > > >
> > > > For the Trinity bomb, the theory of the detonator was settled, but they
> > > > still had to prove it was buildable. There were issues with both
> > > > explosive manufacturing with few enough bubbles and the issue getting
> > > > all the ingition wires to work in a small enough delta-t, so were they
> > > > sure the bomb was buildable before Trinity?
> > > >
> > > > > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > > > > with people working all their waking hours.
> > > > > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > > > > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
> > > >
> > > > Much bigger than predicted, it seems.
> > >
> > > Fred Kaplan pointed out on WNYC yesterday morning that when
> > > considering the effects of the bomb, they considered nothing
> > > but the blast itself -- not the long-term effect of radiation poisoning,
> > > of fallout, etc. (He's written two books on the topic, 20 years apart.)
> >
> > I've seen the second one, not read yet.
> > But it is about all those little Strangeloves
> > and their generals and presidents who came after that.
> >
> > To be fair, those in charge at Los Alamos
> > also didn't consider radiation effects upon themselves.
> > And they suffered the consequences. A disproportional number
> > of those at Los Alamos died from various forms of cancer.
> > (but not Groves)
>
> It now comes to light that when Congress enacted legislation
> to compensate long-term victims of bomb tests (e.g. in Micronesia),
> they excluded those downwind from Los Alamos, and their descendants
> are looking for reparations for their lives, and their destroyed farmland
> and livestock.

The US did much testing in Nevada.
(about 1000 shots, of which about 100 were atmospheric)
The mushroom clouds could be seen from 100 miles away,
in Las Vegas. It was a tourist attraction for a while.
Much of the fall-out ended up in Utah.

Jan

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:54:42?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:45:36?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 25/07/2023 21:45, charles wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <1qefwai.1lntnzr1o0vjo5N%nos...@de-ster, J. J. Lodder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> The war would have staggered on with millions more being killed
> > > > > > >>> without Oppenheimer's contribution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Yes, that's what you like to believe. Another view is that the
> > > > > > >> war (in the Far East) was dragged out unnecessarily in order to
> > > > > > >> have the opportunity to have those live weapons tests,
> > > >
> > > > When do you think the Americans started dragging out the war /for that
> > > > reason/? And what's your evidence that they had that reason in mind?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to argue by asking questions, so I'll say I can hardly imagine
> > > > that they had that reason in mind before July 16, the date of the
> > > > Trinity test, and the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, so it
> > > > sounds as if you're saying the war was dragged out by three weeks or
> > > > less.
> >
> > > Early in 1945 it had become clear that the bomb (both) would work,
> > > and that it could be ready sometime in the second half of 1945
> >
> > Clear enough to the leaders to determine the American war strategy?

> The bomb wasn't needed anyhow, by the estimates of Januari 1945.

(January.)

> At the rate at which bombing was going -all- middle-sized
> Japanese cities would have ben flattened and burned
> by september 1945.
> In terms of city burning Hiroshima was a marginal contribution.

True, but not in terms of morale and excuses for surrender.

> Using the bomb was an aim in itself.
>
> > > From then on it became a mad race in Los Alamos,
> > > with people working all their waking hours.
> > > The Trinity test was not really a 'will it work' test.
> > > To be tested was what the yield would be. (not if, but how much)
> > > The Uranium bomb was even dropped without any testing.
> >
> > OK, but you still haven't provided any evidence that any American leader

> > wanted to prolong the war in order to test the bombs.

> [this is going to take too long]

OK.

> > > > > > > My son-in-law's mother was brought up in a concentration camp in
> > > > > > > the Dutch East Indies. I had an uncle in a POW camp in
> > > > > > > Singapore,, I don't believe that point of view.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure which of the two views you don't believe in?
> > > >
> > > > > I assumed that it was my point of view that charles didn't agree with.
> > > >
> > > > > > - That the war would have dragged on without the bomb? It probably
> > > > > > wouldn't have. All the indications were that the Japanese were on the
> > > > > > brink of surrender anyway.
> > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > No, they were divided.
> >
> > > Until Hirohito decided the matter, then they were anonymous.
> >
> > The sort of error that native speakers produce, often with the help of
> > autocorrect.
> >
> > And they were not unanimous. There was that attempted coup.
> >
> > > > > It was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > > > > that left the Japanese no choice.
> > > >
> > > > The evidence suggests that both the bomb and the USSR were the reasons,
> > > > unless you have evidence that the bomb had little or no effect on the
> > > > decision.
> >
> > > Why do you think that the loss of yet another provincial town
> > > would have any effect? They were already almost out of provincial towns.
> > > And not even the worse destruction and loss of life in Tokyo itself,
> > > right before the eyes of their leadership had not had any effect.
> >
> > Because it was a new and horrible kind of weapon, which in itself had a
> > strong effect on the leadership, and also was a better excuse for ending
> > the war than what Japan had already been through. As Admiral Yonai
> > said to Hirohito,
> >
> > "I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry
> > into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that
> > we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances."

> Hirohito spoke with two tongues.
> For his population he emphasised the bomb,
> in order not to talk about failures of leadership.
> To generals and ministers he emphasised the Coming of the Soviets.

Both were ways not to talk about failures of leadership, but I see no
reason to think that the imminent Soviet invasion was more
important.

> > > > > Less appreciated is that it also left the Americans no choice.
> > > > > (even if the bomb hadn't been ready)
> > > > >
> > > > > Having the Soviets occupy the Northern half of Japan
> > > > > (and staying in occupation there practically forever)
> > > > > was far worse than not having the opportunity for a live weapons test.
> > > > >
> > > > > They just had to allow the Japanese to capitulate.
> > > > > So they came to terms very rapidly,
> > > > > including the unconditional condition of keeping Hirohito on.
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > When do you think the U.S. tell Japan that it accepted that condition?
> > > It is well known, and even in Wikipedia.
> >
> > > Summary: After long debates about conditions Hirohito
> > > agreed with Togo's position that conditions should be reduced
> > > to just one, keeping on Hirohito.

> > > (Togo knew he was probably sacrificing himself)

No doubt, but I don't see how he could have imagined any good outcome
for himself (unless he'd considered dying in the last ditch a good coutcome).
> > > Augut 10, Japanese telegram to State dept. by way of Switzerland:
> > > will accept Potsdam on condition that the the Emperor stays.
> > > Augugt 12, Reply by Byrnes, after consultation with the Allies:
> > > (again by way of Switzerland)
> > > OK, stays, but the power of the Emperor to rule Japan will be subject
> > > to the supreme commander of the Allied Forces.
> > > (and as for Hirohito in person, future, democracy, Japanese decide,
> > > blahblah)
> > ...
> >
> > Thanks, I should have seen that.
> >
> > However, all I see in Byrnes's reply is a weak implication that Hirohito
> > would temporarily retain his role, subject to the supreme Allied commander.
> > Hirohito and his adviser don't seem to have felt assured that Hirohito
> > would never be tried for war crimes.

> Both were on untried ground.

And Hirohito continued to be untried (sorry).

> Fortunately for all the Americans came to their senses in time.
> If you demand unconditional surrender you destroy all local authority.
> That means you have to run the country yourself.

No, if you demand and get unconditional surrender you can /decide/
whether to destroy all local authority and whether you run the country
yourself.

> There was no way that they could do that without using the existing
> Japanese govt apparatus, hence they had to have Hirohito in place.

It's not that simple--they could have deposed Hirohito in favor of his
son, with a regent--but no doubt they were wise not to do that.

> MacArthur saw that, and he immediately reassured Hirohito
> that he had nothing to fear. (as long as he behaved)

> [you saying the same]
....

Yes, he did, and yes, I said that too, but the question was whether the
Allies allowed Japan to surrender unconditionally given one condition.
In fact, they had already given Japan assurances in the Potsdam
declaration: they would allow the military personnel to return to their
homes, they would not enslave the Japanese people or destroy the
Japanese nation, they would allow Japan to rebuild peaceful industry,
and they would allow it to establish a peaceful government according
to the will of the people. Apparently, as the Allies saw it or claimed to
see it, those were not conditions they acceded to in order to get a
surrender; those were things they wanted because they were nice
people, and they didn't mind telling the Japanese so. You might see
it differently, or not.

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:59:15 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Hirohito spoke with two tongues.

Anglice: "spoke out of both sides of his mouth"

Stereotype "Indian" in movies: "(yellow man) speak with forked tongue"

> For his population he emphasised the bomb,
> in order not to talk about failures of leadership.
> To generals and ministers he emphasised the Coming of the Soviets.