Which of these potential US Presidents in 1945 would have used atomic bombs against Japan?

[bguy]

Taft might not need to use the bomb since he was willing to let Japan make a conditional surrender (with him specifically being willing to let them keep Formosa), and thus if the Japanese government is smart enough to accept his offer then the war would be over before the atomic bomb was actually ready, but even Taft would use the bomb if the war was still going in August of 1945, and I can't see anyone else on the list refusing to use the bomb either.

 

[CalBear]

Taft might not need to use the bomb since he was willing to let Japan make a conditional surrender (with him specifically being willing to let them keep Formosa), and thus if the Japanese government is smart enough to accept his offer then the war would be over before the atomic bomb was actually ready, but even Taft would use the bomb if the war was still going in August of 1945, and I can't see anyone else on the list refusing to use the bomb either.

Taft would have been impeached 14 seconds after he made a conditional deal with the Japanese. EVERYONE knew about Bataan by then, KNEW about the atrocities committed against American personnel who fell into Japanese hands. KNEW about what had been done to the civilian population in the Philippines. KNEW about the reports regarding the vast war crimes committed by the Japanese. KNEW that the Nazis had been forced to surrender unconditionally.

This had been a front page image in newapapers across the United States.

Oh, almost forgot, EVERYONE knew about this:

Be the fastest impeachment, at any level, in U.S. History. Very possibly followed by an an actual treason trial (aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime).

Image source: https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/Pearl Harbor aftermath.jpg

 

[bguy]

Taft would have been impeached 14 seconds after he made a conditional deal with the Japanese. EVERYONE knew about Bataan by then, KNEW about the atrocities committed against American personnel who fell into Japanese hands. KNEW about what had been done to the civilian population in the Philippines. KNEW about the reports regarding the vast war crimes committed by the Japanese. KNEW that the Nazis had been forced to surrender unconditionally.

If Taft ran for president, he would doubtlessly have mentioned his willingness to accept less than unconditional surrender in his campaign. (Robert Taft was not someone to hide his beliefs even when those beliefs were unpopular. Remember he was literally the only person in the whole US Congress to speak out against the internment of Japanese-Americans.) Now you can certainly argue that a Taft that campaigned on letting Japan would make a conditional surrender probably wouldn't get elected in the first place (and I would actually agree with you on that), but the poll itself is assuming that Taft somehow has gotten elected president, and if that happens then Congress is not going to impeach a president for doing what he said he would do when he ran for the office.

Also as to your last point, since Taft would assume the presidency on January 20, 1945, he would be making his offer to the Japanese months before the Nazis had surrendered unconditionally.

Be the fastest impeachment, at any level, in U.S. History. Very possibly followed by an an actual treason trial (aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime).

A treason charge is ASB. Not only would there be no legal justification for such a charge, but the United States in 1945 was not a banana republic, so you aren't going to see politicians charged with treason for policy decisions that were within their lawful authority to make.

And anyway IIRC Taft's proposed terms would still involve Japan being occupied and disarmed, and Japan being forced to withdraw from all the foreign territory it had occupied/acquired from 1905 onward. (It would let them keep the Emperor, but of course Truman did the same IOTL and somehow wasn't charged with treason or impeached over it.) By any objective standards such terms would still represent a crushing US victory over Japan. I'm not sure the American people would really care all that much that Japan gets to keep Formosa, when the US has otherwise still clearly and decisively beaten Japan, and a quicker peace means that their loved ones get to come home months sooner.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Taft would have been impeached 14 seconds after he made a conditional deal with the Japanese.

DO you really think the President would be impeached for exercising his constitutional power under Article II Section 2 "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,"? Sure the Senate may have voted it down, over the protests of 500,000 mothers saying "My boy will not die over some Chinese island." No one in Congress knew about the bomb. Before Yalta a Japanese peace would have negated the need to get Stalin involved in the far east war. I don't see a major change in the European arrangements, Stalin occupied Poland and most of Czechoslovakia, but it would have been a different dynamic.

 

[CalBear]

DO you really think the President would be impeached for exercising his constitutional power under Article II Section 2 "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,"? Sure the Senate may have voted it down, over the protests of 500,000 mothers saying "My boy will not die over some Chinese island." No one in Congress knew about the bomb. Before Yalta a Japanese peace would have negated the need to get Stalin involved in the far east war. I don't see a major change in the European arrangements, Stalin occupied Poland and most of Czechoslovakia, but it would have been a different dynamic.

Article II Section 2 is NOT an invitation to commit Treason (mentioned specifically in Article II, Section 4) or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I think that he would not only be Impeached, but tarred & feathered then run out of town on a rail. Further, I wouldn't want to be the agent who sold him life insurance. Dead Man Walking.

Hell there are people STILL pissed off that Hirohito didn't dance Danny Deever since that violated "Unconditional Surrender". My family members who fought in the Pacific were so hot on the subject that I learned by around 5th grade to never bring it up and to leave the room when the regular arguments started.

For that matter letter the Japanese retain Formosa is a direct contradiction of the Cairo Declaration of November 26, 1943. as stated by FDR. There wouldn't be an elected official; in America who would risk being caught on the wrong side of Unconditional Surrender. Even the Postsdam Declaration was seen as political dynamite at the time.

 

[Fernan3451]

Article II Section 2 is NOT an invitation to commit Treason (mentioned specifically in Article II, Section 4) or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I'm not getting the point. How is going to give conditional surrender to the Axis is considered treason (even if the Cairo conference goes differently) ?

 

[Father Maryland]

Article II Section 2 is NOT an invitation to commit Treason (mentioned specifically in Article II, Section 4) or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I think that he would not only be Impeached, but tarred & feathered then run out of town on a rail. Further, I wouldn't want to be the agent who sold him life insurance. Dead Man Walking.

Hell there are people STILL pissed off that Hirohito didn't dance Danny Deever since that violated "Unconditional Surrender". My family members who fought in the Pacific were so hot on the subject that I learned by around 5th grade to never bring it up and to leave the room when the regular arguments started.

For that matter letter the Japanese retain Formosa is a direct contradiction of the Cairo Declaration of November 26, 1943. as stated by FDR. There wouldn't be an elected official; in America who would risk being caught on the wrong side of Unconditional Surrender. Even the Postsdam Declaration was seen as political dynamite at the time.

Yeah if Taft openly runs on conditional surrender you can guarantee that any Democrat would carry 48 states in 1944.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Wendell Wilkie was an avowed Sinophile. Aside from saving American lives, he'd drop the bomb to stop the genocide in China.

DO you really think the President would be impeached for exercising his constitutional power under Article II Section 2 "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,"? Sure the Senate may have voted it down, over the protests of 500,000 mothers saying "My boy will not die over some Chinese island." No one in Congress knew about the bomb. Before Yalta a Japanese peace would have negated the need to get Stalin involved in the far east war. I don't see a major change in the European arrangements, Stalin occupied Poland and most of Czechoslovakia, but it would have been a different dynamic.

If he accepts a conditional surrender he'll be facing mothers upset that their sons died in vain. The American people fully supported requiring unconditional surrender even when they didn't know about the bomb, and even if he keeps the bomb a secret in the short term, the next Democrat to take office (who will be whoever the party nominates in 1948) will reveal it and use it to his political advantage.

 

[Amadeus]

Article II Section 2 is NOT an invitation to commit Treason (mentioned specifically in Article II, Section 4) or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I think that he would not only be Impeached, but tarred & feathered then run out of town on a rail. Further, I wouldn't want to be the agent who sold him life insurance. Dead Man Walking.

Hell there are people STILL pissed off that Hirohito didn't dance Danny Deever since that violated "Unconditional Surrender". My family members who fought in the Pacific were so hot on the subject that I learned by around 5th grade to never bring it up and to leave the room when the regular arguments started.

For that matter letter the Japanese retain Formosa is a direct contradiction of the Cairo Declaration of November 26, 1943. as stated by FDR. There wouldn't be an elected official; in America who would risk being caught on the wrong side of Unconditional Surrender. Even the Postsdam Declaration was seen as political dynamite at the time.

One of the reasons that the Emperor decided to surrender was that on August 12 (after both the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) the Allies, through James Byrnes' State Department, had communicated to the Japanese government that unconditional surrender would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne. This technically was not a concession, as the Allies had never demanded that the Emperor be deposed, but it was a diplomatic move that was crucial to Japan surrendering when it did. Hirohito later stated that had the Allies not guaranteed that his authority would be preserved as Emperor, he would not have called upon Japan to surrender. Edward Drea writes that, "Prince Asaka, Hirohito's uncle and the most hawkish of the royal clan, then asked [Hirohito], if we cannot preserve kokutai, will the war continue, (senso wo keizoku suru ka). 'Of course,' was Hirohito's blunt answer" (p 219). source: https://www.google.com/books/editio...peror/Rb3YvM8ZmC8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=of course.

On this basis I challenge the idea that any U.S. President who negotiated with Japan would have been immediately impeached for treason, as this did not occur when Truman did so in reality. As @bguy points out, engaging in diplomatic negotiations with an enemy nation is not "treason" as defined in Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." You could make an argument that when the Air Force dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning its inhabitants on an impending attack, this constituted "aid and comfort" to the enemy (especially since the city housed a Japanese military base) yet no one tried to impeach Truman for this.

FWIW, my late grandfather served in the Pacific Theater as a U.S. naval officer during the closing months of the war. He later was stationed in Japan from 1945 to 1946 during the Allied occupation. I spoke with him about his war service in detail a few months before he died. While he believed that the usage of atomic bombs was necessary to defeat Japan, nothing he said to me that indicated that he wanted to "tar and feather" Harry Truman for allowing Hirohito to remain on the throne if it brought the war to a quicker end.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not getting the point. How is going to give conditional surrender to the Axis is considered treason (even if the Cairo conference goes differently) ?

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Making a deal with the Japanese, going against the direct stated wishes of FDR?

GOP would go after him simply to preserve the Party. the GOP wouldn't get another veterans vote for 30 years. IOTL, after use of the Bomb, Truman received 170 so called "free will" telegrams (i.e. from the average citizen on their own, not as part of an organized effort), 153 of them urged the President to accept nothing but unconditional surrender. The vast majority of these were from parents of servicemen according to Henry Wallace. (not exactly a bloodthirsty hellion). All too often folks tend to forget just how deep the absolute hatred of the Japanese ran. It didn't peak after Pearl Harbor, it continued to increase every time some new atrocity hit the media, or every time a Marine or Soldier returned to the U.S. after being seriously wounded and shared what they had seen.

What worse is that simply letting the Imperial goverment retain Formosa wouldn't be enough. All you need to do is read the internal communication intercepts.

Any offer, especially Formosa would be seen as weakness (IOTL they saw the POTSDAM DECLARATION i.e. "surrender and we won't kill everyone in the country" as weakness because it offered a condition, this was openly stated by Prime Minister Suzuki as late as August 2nd.). The Japanese wanted No disarmament by outsiders. No War Crimes trials except when/if the Japanese thought they were necessary. No changes to any part of their political system. Formosa and Korean were untouchable, as was Manchuria (the Japanese were willing to agree to a demilitarized Manchuria with the USSR, they saw this as a HUGE concession).

Japan ate two Special Weapons, was being bombed at will, not just by long range bombers, but by fighter bombers both from Okinawa and from carriers, had the Red Army rolling up what had once been its most powerful land force, and was teaching sixth graders how to attack tanks with explosives in backpacks or clay pots and much of the Army STILL believed that they could win the goddamned war.

 

[CalBear]

One of the reasons that the Emperor decided to surrender was that on August 12 (after both the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) the Allies, through James Byrnes' State Department, had communicated to the Japanese government that unconditional surrender would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne. This technically was not a concession, as the Allies had never demanded that the Emperor be deposed, but it was a diplomatic move that was crucial to Japan surrendering when it did. Hirohito later stated that had the Allies not guaranteed that his authority would be preserved as Emperor, he would not have called upon Japan to surrender. Edward Drea writes that, "Prince Asaka, Hirohito's uncle and the most hawkish of the royal clan, then asked [Hirohito], if we cannot preserve kokutai, will the war continue, (senso wo keizoku suru ka). 'Of course,' was Hirohito's blunt answer" (p 219). source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/In_the_Service_of_the_Emperor/Rb3YvM8ZmC8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=of course.

On this basis I challenge the idea that any U.S. President who negotiated with Japan would have been immediately impeached for treason, as this did not occur when Truman did so in reality. As @bguy points out, engaging in diplomatic negotiations with an enemy nation is not "treason" as defined in Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." You could make an argument that when the Air Force dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning its inhabitants on an impending attack, this constituted "aid and comfort" to the enemy (especially since the city housed a Japanese military base) yet no one tried to impeach Truman for this.

FWIW, my late grandfather served in the Pacific Theater as a U.S. naval officer during the closing months of the war. He later was stationed in Japan from 1945 to 1946 during the Allied occupation. I spoke with him about his war service in detail a few months before he died. While he believed that the usage of atomic bombs was necessary to defeat Japan, nothing he said to me that indicated that he wanted to "tar and feather" Harry Truman for allowing Hirohito to remain on the throne if it brought the war to a quicker end.

I agree that, behind the scenes, the U.S. played with the Unconditional Surrender idea, the Postsdam Declaration itself was actually a set of conditions, But a wink and a nod that "we aren't going to hang Hirohito on the Ellipse on Thanksgiving Day" is a LONG WAY from allowing them to retain large areas of territory belonging to what had been stated was a major U.S. Ally.

 

[James Ricker]

A nuclear weapon would be considered a potential way out of the war
It would save hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives
It would also give the Soviets pause,the Wallies didn't know how badly Germany had hurt the Soviets
It would also guarantee re-election if it ended the war
It was a no-brainer anyone on the list would have used it

 

[The Tai-Pan]

All of them. The debate over the Bomb came later, not in the moment.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

All of them. Even if Taft said he wouldn’t I bet he’d change his mind once people started telling him “drop the bombs or you’ll have to deal with a nation that’s pissed off at you”. He’d be out of WH as soon as news breaks that he could’ve ended the war earlier and prevented innumerable deaths. I swear there’s a Truman quote where he said if he didn’t drop it he’d of been strung up on the nearest tree by the families of those soldiers who died fighting in Japan.

 

[bguy]

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Making a deal with the Japanese, going against the direct stated wishes of FDR?

Negotiating to end a war is not "providing aid and comfort to the enemy." If it was then any US president who ever concluded or even attempted to conclude a war on anything less than unconditional surrender could be charged with treason. Something that IOTL would have meant that since the end of World War 2 alone, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, H. W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden could all be charged with treason since every one of those presidents attempted to end a military conflict involving the United States on terms less than total victory.

As for going against the direct stated wishes of FDR, how is that any kind of a crime? If Robert Taft is the president then FDR is not the president. The incumbent president makes foreign policy not the former president.

GOP would go after him simply to preserve the Party. the GOP wouldn't get another veterans vote for 30 years. IOTL, after use of the Bomb, Truman received 170 so called "free will" telegrams (i.e. from the average citizen on their own, not as part of an organized effort), 153 of them urged the President to accept nothing but unconditional surrender. The vast majority of these were from parents of servicemen according to Henry Wallace. (not exactly a bloodthirsty hellion). All too often folks tend to forget just how deep the absolute hatred of the Japanese ran. It didn't peak after Pearl Harbor, it continued to increase every time some new atrocity hit the media, or every time a Marine or Soldier returned to the U.S. after being seriously wounded and shared what they had seen.

And again an American electorate that is willing to elect Robert Taft in the first place suggests a very different political situation than OTL. Taft isn't winning the GOP nomination (much less the general election) unless the public is much more willing to accept conditional surrender then they were IOTL. You can't consider OTL's attitude to unconditional surrender in a President Taft timeline because Taft would never be president in a timeline where OTL attitudes persist.

And regardless the popularity of a policy has nothing to do with its legality.

Nor is there any reason to think a party would support impeaching a president from their own party simply because he was pushing an unpopular policy or was personally unpopular. American political parties just don't operate that way. Hence why the GOP never supported impeaching Hoover nor the Democrats supported impeaching Wilson even when they were both deeply unpopular (and in Wilson's case incapable of performing the duties of the office.) Do you really think Taft would be more unpopular for suggesting a willingness to let Japan keep Formosa than Hoover was when the unemployment rate was at 25%?

What worse is that simply letting the Imperial goverment retain Formosa wouldn't be enough. All you need to do is read the internal communication intercepts.

Any offer, especially Formosa would be seen as weakness (IOTL they saw the POTSDAM DECLARATION i.e. "surrender and we won't kill everyone in the country" as weakness because it offered a condition, this was openly stated by Prime Minister Suzuki as late as August 2nd.). The Japanese wanted No disarmament by outsiders. No War Crimes trials except when/if the Japanese thought they were necessary. No changes to any part of their political system. Formosa and Korean were untouchable, as was Manchuria (the Japanese were willing to agree to a demilitarized Manchuria with the USSR, they saw this as a HUGE concession).

Japan ate two Special Weapons, was being bombed at will, not just by long range bombers, but by fighter bombers both from Okinawa and from carriers, had the Red Army rolling up what had once been its most powerful land force, and was teaching sixth graders how to attack tanks with explosives in backpacks or clay pots and much of the Army STILL believed that they could win the goddamned war.

The Japanese may very well reject Taft's proposed terms (in which case the war goes on and Japan gets hit with nuclear weapons in August of 1945), but that has nothing to do with whether it is legal for Taft to offer such terms. And it is absolutely legal for the President of the United States to offer to end a war on less than unconditional surrender.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

For that matter letter the Japanese retain Formosa is a direct contradiction of the Cairo Declaration of November 26, 1943. as stated by FDR. There wouldn't be an elected official; in America who would risk being caught on the wrong side of Unconditional Surrender. Even the Postsdam Declaration was seen as political dynamite at the time.

This is the real part. Even if a new President didn't want to go down the 'Unconditional route' , it was way, way too late to change now. It would risk blowing up the entire post war peace with both the UK and the USSR.

 

[wcv215]

Actually the one that surprises me is Byrnes. He was ALL IN on stomping the Empire flat.

At least he’s obscure enough people might not be super familiar with his war views. FDR not so much.

 

[CalBear]

This is the real part. Even if a new President didn't want to go down the 'Unconditional route' , it was way, way too late to change now. It would risk blowing up the entire post war peace with both the UK and the USSR.

IOTL the British were less than thrilled with letting Hirohito keep his neck in original factory condition.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

One of the reasons that the Emperor decided to surrender was that on August 12 (after both the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) the Allies, through James Byrnes' State Department, had communicated to the Japanese government that unconditional surrender would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne. This technically was not a concession, as the Allies had never demanded that the Emperor be deposed, but it was a diplomatic move that was crucial to Japan surrendering when it did. Hirohito later stated that had the Allies not guaranteed that his authority would be preserved as Emperor, he would not have called upon Japan to surrender. Edward Drea writes that, "Prince Asaka, Hirohito's uncle and the most hawkish of the royal clan, then asked [Hirohito], if we cannot preserve kokutai, will the war continue, (senso wo keizoku suru ka). 'Of course,' was Hirohito's blunt answer" (p 219). source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/In_the_Service_of_the_Emperor/Rb3YvM8ZmC8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=of course.

On this basis I challenge the idea that any U.S. President who negotiated with Japan would have been immediately impeached for treason, as this did not occur when Truman did so in reality. As @bguy points out, engaging in diplomatic negotiations with an enemy nation is not "treason" as defined in Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." You could make an argument that when the Air Force dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning its inhabitants on an impending attack, this constituted "aid and comfort" to the enemy (especially since the city housed a Japanese military base) yet no one tried to impeach Truman for this.

FWIW, my late grandfather served in the Pacific Theater as a U.S. naval officer during the closing months of the war. He later was stationed in Japan from 1945 to 1946 during the Allied occupation. I spoke with him about his war service in detail a few months before he died. While he believed that the usage of atomic bombs was necessary to defeat Japan, nothing he said to me that indicated that he wanted to "tar and feather" Harry Truman for allowing Hirohito to remain on the throne if it brought the war to a quicker end.

After the bombs were dropped, Japan said they would surrender on the condition that it did not prejudice the prerogatives of the Emperor as a sovereign ruler, and Truman responded by saying that the authority of the emperor would be subject to Allied command. Notably that does not promise to allow the emperor to remain in place. It was deliberately worded in an ambiguous way so the Allies could use the emperor if he cooperated or remove him if he didn't. Before the bombs were dropped Japan, the Japanese ambassador to the USSR told the war cabinet that it was unlikely that the Soviets would mediate, and that even if they did the best Japan would get would be keeping the emperor in a ceremonial role as part of an otherwise unconditional surrender; the Japanese government rejected this. Without either the bombs or Operation Downfall, you're not going to get a peace that the Allies would find acceptable, and there were very few Americans in 1945 who would have chosen operation Downfall over dropping Little Boy and Fat Man.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Article II Section 2 is NOT an invitation to commit Treason (mentioned specifically in Article II, Section 4) or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I think that he would not only be Impeached, but tarred & feathered then run out of town on a rail. Further, I wouldn't want to be the agent who sold him life insurance. Dead Man Walking.

Hell there are people STILL pissed off that Hirohito didn't dance Danny Deever since that violated "Unconditional Surrender". My family members who fought in the Pacific were so hot on the subject that I learned by around 5th grade to never bring it up and to leave the room when the regular arguments started.

For that matter letter the Japanese retain Formosa is a direct contradiction of the Cairo Declaration of November 26, 1943. as stated by FDR. There wouldn't be an elected official; in America who would risk being caught on the wrong side of Unconditional Surrender. Even the Postsdam Declaration was seen as political dynamite at the time.

Neither the Casablanca or Cairo Declarations were binding on the US President or Congress. Whether Okinawa or Formosa were included in post was Japan was a detail few Americans cared about. The President was free to negotiate whatever terms he desired. As Wilson learned the Senate would have its say over them but that is how it would have played out. FDR cared about China and Chaing most Americans did not. Surrender of the IJA And IJN would have been enough for most Americans.