Rush Limbaugh--Atomic Bomb a "win-win" situation for Japan [Archive]

What Exit?

08-05-2005, 05:21 PM

I had the misfortune of over hearing some of Rush's radio show today...he was talking about people apologizing for our use of the bombs in WWII..and actually said something to the effect of "we don't need to apologize, the bomb ended a war...it showed the world how terrible atomic weapons can be, and made everyone afraid to use them, and it forced Japan into a democracy...it was a win-win situation for everyone!! :)" (The smiley face is to denote the happy-warm fuzzy tone he had as he said this)

Did anyone else manage to stumble across this latest nonsense? For some reason, I wonder if this was from an older show, because I feel like I've heard something like this from here before, but all his bullshit kind of runs together after you hear enough of it.

Gee, I think Rush is a raving Looney Toon most of the times. But damn this almost makes sense to me. He is actually saying how terrible Atomic weapons are. The War did wrap up very quickly. Probably quicker than it would have, definitely with less American Casualties and less Russian Influence. It basically let USA turn Japan into a temporary Vassal state. None of this is too bad.

Squink

08-05-2005, 05:23 PM

Actually, he has a bit of a point.For instance, the Cuban missile crisis might have become vastly nastier without both sides having a clear and graphic picture of just what a hell bomb does to a city.

wring

08-05-2005, 05:25 PM

though it would have been nice for him to acknowledge the horror for you know, the victims of the bombings.

Miller

08-05-2005, 05:30 PM

Yeah, I can't really get too steamed up about that. Much as it pains my liberal heart to agree with anything that revolting gasbag says, he's more-or-less accurate. We were at the tail-end of the most destructive war ever, and Japan was one of the agressor nations that started it. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, toppled one of the most depraved regimes in history, and helped establish a democracy with a strong respect for human rights in its place. It wasn't even the most destructive bombing raid we conducted in the war, merely the most efficient. Yeah, it was a horrible thing, but war is horrible by definition. We no more should apologize to Japan for the atomic bomb than we should apologize to Germany for the conventional bombing runs we conducted over Berlin.

beagledave

08-05-2005, 05:39 PM

Yeah...he says a lot of idiotic things (his defense (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080505/content/cutting_edge.guest.html) of Novak's actions on CNN is a hoot)..but at least read the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki bit (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080505/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html) in context.

Capa84

08-05-2005, 05:51 PM

Uh...I guess I didn't make my point clear, to say that the bombing was a win-win situation for everyone involved, including the civilian populations of the two cities, is a bit off.

Yes, Japan is better off now, and it ended the war, but I'm doubt there is anyone in Japan thinking, "wow I'm glad my grandparents got microwaved."

DiosaBellissima

08-05-2005, 06:00 PM

It pains me to say this as well, but he has a point.

Capa84- I see where you are coming from and surely the Japanese citizens who survived the attack would agree with you. Yet, as others have pointed out, more was gained in the big picture because of the use of the weapon. Of course, this is all arguable and such (and I am sure someone will argue it).

wolfstu

08-05-2005, 06:03 PM

Yes, Japan is better off now, and it ended the war, but I'm doubt there is anyone in Japan thinking, "wow I'm glad my grandparents got microwaved."

Definitely, but then much the same could be said for the residents of Rotterdam and Dresden. Each city was largely levelled by bombing campaigns, each with the goal of ending the war (Rotterdam forced the Dutch to surrender to the Germans; Dresden arguably helped to cripple the German war machine). They weren't atomic, but the biggest difference there is in the nature of the wounds of the survivors, and in lack of the lingering radioactivity.

The atomic bombs definitely sucked, but would things have been better if the Allies did to Japan what they did to Germany? (Flatten their cities and invade overland, I mean.)

This doesn't, of course, deserve to be said flippantly. Atomic bombings are clearly awful, and it would be nice if no one ever again comes to the conclusion that their use is the best option at hand.

Squink

08-05-2005, 06:17 PM

Yes, Japan is better off now, and it ended the war, but I'm doubt there is anyone in Japan thinking, "wow I'm glad my grandparents got microwaved." Sure, but you've gotta remember that Rush is a conservative. He takes his humor hints off of a president who compares 9/11, economic disaster, and war to "hitting the trifecta."

Liberal

08-05-2005, 06:31 PM

Much as it pains my liberal heart to agree with anything that revolting gasbag says, he's more-or-less accurate.Agreed. Of course, Rush can't have it both ways. The man who originally decided that it would be the best thing overall was a Democrat.

MaxTheVool

08-05-2005, 06:43 PM

I also generally despise Rush but basically agree with his sentiment here, although he did express it rather flippantly. In fact, I've often thought that it was a piece of historical luck for humanity as a whole that nuclear weapons were developed precisely when they were, that is, at the tail end of a war. If they were developed between wars, then people would have built a lot of them, and next war, LOTS of nukes. If they were developed right in the middle of the war, again, lots of nukes before the war ends. At the very tail end of a war, they are used, end that war, and then people have a long time to stare at the horror they caused, think about the implications for future world wars, etc.

Oh, and note that this is yet ANOTHER thread in which, despite the frequent accusations of mindless partisanship that are thrown at us, the liberals of the SDMB show themselves willing to agree with a conservative, disagree with a liberal, and NOT toe what is generally thought of as the liberal thought police party line (that being, "dropping the bomb was a horribly criminal act and Truman was evil and ruthless and oh, my, I beat my breast in horror and shame at being an American".)

rayh

08-05-2005, 06:56 PM

Can I just wish everyone a happy Hiroshima Day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4748027.stm)

Manduck

08-05-2005, 07:26 PM

Rush's comments make no sense logically. If the atomic bomb showed to world how terrible atomic weapons can be, as he says it did, then it must have been terrible for someone, so it can't have been a win-win for everyone. The obvious losers are the people who were killed and wounded by the bomb; also, their relatives and friends.

What Exit?

08-05-2005, 07:38 PM

Padeye

08-05-2005, 07:39 PM

As impolitic as Rugh's statement was it has some merit. The choice wasn't being nuked or not being nuked it was potentially being nuked or continuing to have cities firebombed until the US and possibly the Soviet Union. If yo get a chance see the Robert MacNamara documentary Fog of War. He goes into chilling detail about how he helped Curtis LeMay maximized the effectiveness of the incidiary bombings of Japanese cities. Even counting radiation sickness deaths the incidiary bombings killed and mamed far more people. Perhaps the analogy is closer to the choice of eating a shit sandwich or drinking an entire cesspool.

wolf_meister

08-05-2005, 07:51 PM

Liberal
Of course, Rush can't have it both ways. The man who originally decided that it would be the best thing overall was a Democrat.
Good one !!! I imagine Rush swept that fact under the rug !!!

Also, the guy who thought it was worth mobilizing a good chunk of our nation's workforce, brains and resources into a project that cost a huge amount of money with zero guarnatee of it ever working was also a Democrat.

Gee, I guess Rush Limbaugh didn't mind government spending for that huh?

Also, why did the ferderal government stick its nose into a project that was clearly a states rights issue? Yes, it should have been up to each of the states to develop their own bomb project OR whether they wanted to build an atomic bomb at all.

Silentgoldfish

08-05-2005, 08:40 PM

Oh for fucks sake. Does everyone who decries the use of the atmomic bombs in Japan think that the civilians would have been so much happier burning to death in a conventional fire bombing campaign instead?

Gorsnak

08-05-2005, 08:56 PM

Look, even if you punch somebody in the face for their own good, you still apologize for the punch afterwards.

Silentgoldfish

08-05-2005, 09:03 PM

Look, even if you punch somebody in the face for their own good, you still apologize for the punch afterwards.

Gross oversimplifications like that don't work when discussing war.

Gorsnak

08-05-2005, 09:11 PM

Gross oversimplifications like that don't work when discussing war.
:shrug: Then Rush's comments are stupid. The US didn't nuke Japan for its own good. The US nuked Japan because the US wanted to hurt Japan as much as possible - not without good reason, but still, the intentions were in no way benevolent. Yes, Japan was the villain in the Pacific theatre in WWII. Yes, Japan brought its near-destruction upon itself. No, it is not reasonable to expect the Japanese to thank the Americans for nuking them.

Silentgoldfish

08-05-2005, 09:19 PM

I don't think the Japanese should be thanking anyone, but I also don't think that America should be apologizing.

I don't think Rush said that the Japanese should either, just that as it turned out in the long run there was a good outcome for the country as a whole.

Ravenman

08-05-2005, 09:59 PM

Other great "win-win" situations throughout history:

Assasination of Abraham Lincoln. The war was already won, Mrs. Lincoln got to see a play with her loved one right before he expired, and Washington, DC got a great memorial out of it.

Sinking of the Titanic: Shipbuilders learned not to make stupid sales pitches like "the unsinkable ship," the shipyard workers in Belfast got to go to work building another ship to replace it, and there was that great movie with Leo that would have never been made if it hadn't sunk.

The Vietnam War: The US learned (until 2003) not to get involved in a land war in Asia, another great memorial in DC, Vietnam was reunited, and John McCain gets to make tearful trips there all the time.

Come on, history is FILLED with win-win situations! Contibute your own!

Sam Stone

08-05-2005, 10:04 PM

It was probably better for the civilians as well, because if the U.S. would have invaded Japan, millions would have died. The bombing campaign was leveling that country - two big bombs stopped it all. But had the U.S. not had the nukes, they would have just continued flattening the country.

BTW, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had death tolls roughly on the order of the death toll for the firebombing of Tokyo, yet we don't have endless debate threads about that.

48 million people, the majority civilians, died in WWII. Of that 48 million, about 0.5% of them died in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If those two bombs helped end the war and prevent the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers, it seems reasonable to call it a 'win-win'.

EddyTeddyFreddy

08-05-2005, 10:32 PM

I think "regrettable necessity" is a better term than "win-win."

wolf_meister

08-05-2005, 10:44 PM

Ravenman
Rather dark humor there ... but I must admit pretty funny too.

Just thought I'd mention you forgot to put Andrew Johnson in the "win" category.

kunilou

08-05-2005, 10:50 PM

Civilian deaths during the Battle of Okinawa (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm) estimated between 42,000 and 100,000.

Civilian deaths from the Tokyo fire bombings (http://www.factmonster.com/spot/hiroshima1.html) estimated at 140,000.

Civilian deaths (immediate and long-term) combined in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings estimated at 340,000.

It's reasonable to assume the invasion of Kyushu which was scheduled for November 1945 would have resulted in at least as many Japanese civilian deaths as the two bombs combined, with no assurance the Japanese would have surrendered even then.

Limbaugh's a buffoon. But he's right this time.

And no, I can't believe I just said that.

NDP

08-05-2005, 10:50 PM

Ravenman
Rather dark humor there ... but I must admit pretty funny too.

Just thought I'd mention you forgot to put Andrew Johnson in the "win" category.
At least until the Radical Republicans turned against him and he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

Manduck

08-05-2005, 11:13 PM

Frank

08-06-2005, 12:10 AM

I think "regrettable necessity" is a better term than "win-win."
As mentioned above, Limbaugh was definitely flippant. Your term is much more appropriate. I would have made the same decision as Truman did.

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 02:37 AM

Hardly a "win win". :rolleyes: But the bombs killed far less Japanese civilians than any other option then known. The "blockade" aka 'starve them out" option, while very likely resulting in the least American casualties, would have killed many millions of Japanese (and most of our own POW's*). Invasion would have killed a likely million Japanese and many Americans. Overall, the Bomb killed the fewest humans of any known option.

Rush is an idiot, IMHO- but even a broken clock is right twice a day! :p

*something many forget- most Allied POW's were on the ragged edge of starvation, so any delay would have resulted in many deaths.

Liberal

08-06-2005, 06:13 AM

Limbaugh's a buffoon. But he's right this time.

And no, I can't believe I just said that.Yeah, but let's not give him too much credit. It wasn't an original idea. Lots of people have made this same point before Rush.

Liberal

08-06-2005, 06:16 AM

I think that what a lot of you are missing is that "win-win situation" means that there is no downside. But getting an A-bomb dropped on you has a definite downside, even if you can argue that you somehow benefit on balance.Depends on exactly the circumstance, I guess. Instant vaporization is probably better than the seemingly endless anticipation of a fast approaching bayonet and the subsequent slow choking on your own blood.

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 07:00 AM

Depends on exactly the circumstance, I guess. Instant vaporization is probably better than the seemingly endless anticipation of a fast approaching bayonet and the subsequent slow choking on your own blood.

I'm thinking better than burning to death after a firebomb has hit your extremely flamming house.

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 07:02 AM

Er, flammable house.

Shodan

08-06-2005, 07:42 AM

The US nuked Japan because the US wanted to hurt Japan as much as possible - not without good reason, but still, the intentions were in no way benevolent. No, otherwise we would have nuked Tokyo.

The other alternative - an invasion of mainland Japan - would have cost a half milliion American and a million Japanese lives, by one estimate, and most of the Japanese would have been civilian. Part of the idea of nuking them, as bizarre as it sounds, was to save lives.

No point in the US apologizing, nor for the Japanese to thank us. The Japanese could apologize for starting the war, but it seems a little late for that now.

Regards,
Shodan

RickJay

08-06-2005, 07:48 AM

Uh...I guess I didn't make my point clear, to say that the bombing was a win-win situation for everyone involved, including the civilian populations of the two cities, is a bit off.
I'm not sure it was a "win" for the people actually vaporized in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but had there been no A-bomb those cities would have been incinerated by fleets of napalm-wielding bombers, anyway. So it was a tie.

The day BEFORE Nagasaki, Yokohama was essentially erased from the map by conventional bombing. The experience of people caught in napalm raids was - well, there's really no words to describe it. Firsthand accounts read like a firsthand account of what hell must be like.

black rabbit

08-06-2005, 08:23 AM

Baldwin

08-06-2005, 09:40 AM

I don't agree with the basic premise -- that it was a choice between nuking cities or an invasion. (Of course, this has been hashed out endlessly in previous threads.) There's evidence Japan was ready to surrender weeks before August 6, on essentially the same conditions as the actual surrender. My feeling is that the purpose of the bombs was to make it clear that it was the U.S. and not the U.S.S.R. that was winning the Pacific War. Like the destruction of Dresden, it was unnecessary terrorism on an immense scale.

Captain Amazing

08-06-2005, 10:05 AM

There's evidence Japan was ready to surrender weeks before August 6, on essentially the same conditions as the actual surrender. My feeling is that the purpose of the bombs was to make it clear that it was the U.S. and not the U.S.S.R. that was winning the Pacific War.

Check out the editorial in the September "Armchair General"m where both the points you made are argued against.

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 11:47 AM

There's evidence Japan was ready to surrender weeks before August 6, on essentially the same conditions as the actual surrender.

Actually, there isn't any such evidence. In fact, if a Cabinent member had even publically mentioned it, I have no doubt he would have been assasinated right then and there.

Sure, there were some dudes very low down in the chain- who- without any authority at all- made some "peace feelers". But that happened in Nazi Germany too.

wolfstu

08-06-2005, 12:33 PM

I've got a question that's probably more suited to GD or GQ, but what the hell.

What was the military significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the bombings? I mean, other than expedience.

As I understand it, both Eisenhower and Mac were opposed to using the bombs, because they didn't think destroying those particular cities would have any real military value. On the other hand, I know that Hiroshima was a communications center, and Nagasaki a shipyard, at least earlier in the war.

What gives?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki):

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was as a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading forcThe city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

What Exit?

08-06-2005, 12:35 PM

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki):
I don't think he really wanted facts. Boy what a downer. ;)

GIGObuster

08-06-2005, 01:34 PM

Although I agree with most of the posters that think it was justifiable to do so, the only shame IMHO will remain the fact that the zero target of the bombs was the center of the cities, had it had been the sea ports or the military factories then I would have been 100% in favor, as it was, the population center was the target.

It has to be mentioned that the Hiroshima target, a small bridge in the middle of the city, was missed by only 800 feet. The target in Nagasaki was missed by over a mile, still leveling half the city. That mistake however saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

I will always suspect that the bombardiers at Nagasaki, knowing then what this bomb could do, found a way to almost “miss” the city.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 01:38 PM

What Exit?

08-06-2005, 01:40 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 01:42 PM

Because most American don't agree with your Logic.
What's wrong with my logic?

What's irrational is the need that Americans have to always try to justify themeselves as the good guys and never admit they can do anything wrong.

What Exit?

08-06-2005, 01:50 PM

What's wrong with my logic?

What's irrational is the need that Americans have to always try to justify themeselves as the good guys and never admit they can do anything wrong.
Yuor Logic:
It was an act of evil. That's all there is to it. Just ask yourselves if you'd be willing to burn your own children to death to stop a war. It is no more moral to burn someone else's children than your own.

I wish Americans would just admit that dropping the bomb was evil and move on. We're not perfect. We did a shitty thing. Why is it so hard just to admit that?

Americans don't tend to go Hiroshima was burning children; it was about ending the war quicker and on terms favorable to the USA.
Your logic is not wrong, and is actually very nice. But on the day most Americans agree with you or better off most of the world agree with you, we will probably be able to achieve world peace. I apologize for the fact the shortness of my reply would lead you to think I disagreed with your logic. I just don’t think many people would follow your logic.
Most people can’t even make the connection that we invaded Iraq on premise of fear of WMD. We seem to have proof that WMD intelligence was made up and so American public re-elected the President who started a borderline illegal war. (I will now done a helmet and flak jacket for my own defense from attacks for this statement)

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 01:54 PM

Steve MB

08-06-2005, 01:54 PM

What's wrong with my logic?
Its nonexistence. You made a simple assertion, and did not provide it with any logical backing whatsoever.

RickJay

08-06-2005, 01:59 PM

The US won WW II largely by deliberately targeting civilians.
Well, no, the Allies (be it the USA, UK, USSR, or whomever) won WWII largely by destroying the armed forces of Germany, Japan and their minor allies. The killing of civilians was part of it to be sure, but was certainly not the major route to victory.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 02:00 PM

Its nonexistence. You made a simple assertion, and did not provide it with any logical backing whatsoever.
Yes I did. I asked if you would be willing to burn your own children to death to end a war. If your answer is no, then you have no right to burn anyone else's children to death. If your answer is yes, then you're a fucking psychpath.

So what is your answer, yes or no?

What Exit?

08-06-2005, 02:07 PM

Ok, I misunderstood you. My apologies.

I know I have an unpopular opinion. I've been roasted for it before. Someone will be here shortly to tell me that burning those childrens saved billions of lives....BILLIONS, I tell you.

The US won WW II largely by deliberately targeting civilians. When other people do that, we (rightly) call them "terrorists." When America does it, it's heroism.

The Pacific war was about fighting enemies, Island by Island. Most people killed on both sides were military. By the time we were able to fire bomb Japan and then Nuke them, the bigger question to me is why a defeated Japan did not surrender until we resorted to terror tactics. I think we were in the right to use such means. War is HELL. Japan's record on civilian treatment was amazingly bad. Ask Chinese and Koreans to this day about Japanese. They might even be secretly disappointed we didn’t nuke every Japanese city. Every debate has multiple sides. Every war has civilians being targeted and killed.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 02:15 PM

Well, no, the Allies (be it the USA, UK, USSR, or whomever) won WWII largely by destroying the armed forces of Germany, Japan and their minor allies. The killing of civilians was part of it to be sure, but was certainly not the major route to victory.
More civilians were killed by fire bombing cities in Germany and Japan than were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. All told, the US killed something like 800,000 civilians (some estimates are higher). The demoralizing effects of our terroristic attacks on cities like Tokyo (100,000 dead civilians) and Dresden (400,000 dead civilians) were instrumental in ending the war. It was a deliberate and calculated strategy.

And if it wasn't a major route to victory, then how can it be justified?

wolfstu

08-06-2005, 02:57 PM

The demoralizing effects of our terroristic attacks on cities like ... Dresden (400,000 dead civilians)

Saith Wikipedia:The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. ... Earlier reputable estimates varied from 25,000 to more than 60,000, but historians now view around 25,000-35,000 as the likely range.
Not that it changes the significance of burning a city down very much, but those numbers are out by an order of magnitude. Your number for Tokyo agrees with Wikipedia, though.

wolfstu

08-06-2005, 02:58 PM

Saith

That's from "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden]Bombing of Dresden in WWII (]Wikipedia[/url)"

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 03:02 PM

Saith Wikipedia:
Not that it changes the significance of burning a city down very much, but those numbers are out by an order of magnitude. Your number for Tokyo agrees with Wikipedia, though.
From the same Wiki entry:
Overall, Anglo-American bombing of German cities claimed ca. 400,000 civilian lives.
It seems that I confused the overall number for Germany with the number for Dresden alone.

Thanks for the correction.

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 03:11 PM

GodDAMN but you're a tool, Dio.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 03:18 PM

GodDAMN but you're a tool, Dio.
Can't think of an actual rebuttal, huh?

tnetennba

08-06-2005, 03:24 PM

When people wonder how the terrorists can justify the 9/11 bombings and the bombings in London, I like to bring up Hiroshima to see how quickly THEY justify the mass killing of innocent civilians. Oh, sure, there's all kinds of differences. But once you've calmly explained the good that's come of a brutal slaughter of innocent people -- setting fire to babies -- how can you pretend to be mystified at how terrorists think, or have vastly different moral values?

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 03:25 PM

Can't think of an actual rebuttal, huh?

What the fuck is the point of trying to get someone with his head so far up his ass to see reason?

I'll just be glad once again that I'll never meet you in real life, and that I don't know anyone quite so stupid as you.

Although it is fucking scary that you've managed to procreate.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 03:35 PM

What the fuck is the point of trying to get someone with his head so far up his ass to see reason?

I'll just be glad once again that I'll never meet you in real life, and that I don't know anyone quite so stupid as you.

Although it is fucking scary that you've managed to procreate.
In other words, you've got nothing and all you can do is spray indignant spittle. I win.

tnetennba

08-06-2005, 03:35 PM

What the fuck is the point of trying to get someone with his head so far up his ass to see reason?

He's got a point, Dio. What's the point in talking to him?

I'll just be glad once again that I'll never meet you in real life, and that I don't know anyone quite so stupid as you.

What, they don't have mirrors in Brisbane?

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 03:37 PM

What, they don't have mirrors in Brisbane?

Oooh, buurrrn!

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 04:13 PM

It was an act of evil. That's all there is to it. Just ask yourselves if you'd be willing to burn your own children to death to stop a war. It is no more moral to burn someone else's children than your own.

I wish Americans would just admit that dropping the bomb was evil and move on. We're not perfect. We did a shitty thing. Why is it so hard just to admit that?

War is shitty. War kills people, many of them innocent. We were attacked, by enemies of heinous, unspeakable and incredible evil. We fought to defend ourselves and our children. The Japanese and Germans intiated the war against us. We are no more in the wrong for killing them than any of us would be for shooting a man engaged in the very act of trying to kill our children in front of us.

The dropping of the Bomb was no more 'evil" than bombing various war production plants in Germany or Japan and killing the "innocent civilians" thus engaged there.

Any 'evil' we did was brought upon their own heads- thus it isn't 'evil" We had no choice. "Not bombing' would have ended up killing more 'innocent children' than bombing. Every day the war went on, Japanese children starved and in Germany Jewish kids died.

Saying "would you be willing to burn your own children" is specious and inflammitory- it wasn't a choice. The Nazi's were willing and were trying to burn Jewish children and send 'terror weapons' against British children. The Japanese enslaved young Chinese women into forced prostituion, and killed thousands of children by their early experiment in germ warfare (in China). We had to fight back, otherwise our own children would have died. I am sure that if the Germans and Japanese had not (in effect) used their children as human shield and sent them away to a non-strategic area, we wouldn't have bombed it.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 04:23 PM

Of there was a choice. Would you burn your own children to death to end a war. yes or no? That's the only question that matters.

All your static about what the Nazis and Japanese did is just an irrelevant distraction. That doesn't justify killing toddlers. There is no way to make killing children a morally justifiable choice. It's not ok just because it was America.

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 04:44 PM

Of there was a choice. Would you burn your own children to death to end a war. yes or no? That's the only question that matters.

Gosh, you're right! World War 2 was in fact all an excuse so America could kill babies.

So tell us, of master of warfare, what would you have done, had you the power to make any decisions then? No, seriously.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 04:51 PM

Gosh, you're right! World War 2 was in fact all an excuse so America could kill babies.
No, I'm saying the tactic of fire bombing and nuking civilian populations was an immoral way to win the war. That should not be a controversial statement. Certainly Americans don't think that American civilians are a legitimate target in wartime.
So tell us, of master of warfare, what would you have done, had you the power to make any decisions then? No, seriously.
Something that didn't involve the deliberate slaughter of civilians.

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 04:56 PM

Something that didn't involve the deliberate slaughter of civilians.

No. You can't say that it was all about killing civilians and shouldn't have been done and then not give an alternative.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 05:00 PM

No. You can't say that it was all about killing civilians and shouldn't have been done and then not give an alternative.
Why can't I?

The alternative is to fight a conventional war without targeting civilians. Are you saying that it's impossible to win a war without doing that?

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 05:01 PM

Of there was a choice. Would you burn your own children to death to end a war. yes or no? That's the only question that matters.

.

Really, the most specious and inlfammitory question I have seen so far here. This makes me lose what respect I had for you. No, I wouldn't- but I don't have to make that choice. I wouldn't shoot myself in the head with an M1 Garand to stop a Nazi Stormtroopers from bayoneting me in the gut. I'd shoot him.

If the Nazi's didn't want their children to die, they shouldn't have started the war now, should they have?

We had no choice- civilians were working in and housed near military-industrail targets.

Saying "well I would have done something else"- is also damn stupid and fallacious. Suuuure you would have- what? :dubious: You clearly have no alternative, other than name calling.

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 05:06 PM

Why can't I?

The alternative is to fight a conventional war without targeting civilians. Are you saying that it's impossible to win a war without doing that?

Yes. We had to target industrial areas. If you don't target the enemies means of making war, you greatly increase your chance of losing it, or at the very least- increase the length of the war- damning even more people to death.

We had to win WWII. If we hadn't won it, it'd be our families in those death camps. The outcome of the war wasn't a foregone conclusion you know. We had a primary duty to our own families. Thus, anything less than full out war is immoral. Fighting a 'limited war" and thus risking loss is what would have been the immoral choice.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 05:08 PM

You realize that nothing you said rebuts my point. I win again. You admit that you wouldn't kill your own children. That means you're conceding my point. It's wrong to kill children. You know it. You don't have a comeback for it, and all you can do is spray saliva.

And it was not just anout collateral damage from bombing military tagets. The civilians WERE the target.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 05:11 PM

Yes. We had to target industrial areas. If you don't target the enemies means of making war, you greatly increase your chance of losing it, or at the very least- increase the length of the war- damning even more people to death.

We had to win WWII. If we hadn't won it, it'd be our families in those death camps. The outcome of the war wasn't a foregone conclusion you know. We had a primary duty to our own families. Thus, anything less than full out war is immoral. Fighting a 'limited war" and thus risking loss is what would have been the immoral choice.
This is just a lot of noise and bullshit. Killing civilians was the point and the ONLY point of the fire bombing raids in Germany and Japan and was the only point of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Citing any incidental damage to military targets is just weak-ass rationalizing and I'm not fucking buying it.

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 05:13 PM

You realize that nothing you said rebuts my point. I win again. You admit that you wouldn't kill your own children. That means you're conceding my point..

Would you shoot yourself in the head with your M1 Garand to stop a Nazi stormtrooper from bayonetting you in the gut? No, of course not, so thus that means you have conceded my point and thus "I win". :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your scenario is specious and is not based upon reality. Killing my own children wouldn't have stopped that war, thus my unwillingness to do so concedes nothing.

Are you drunk?

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 05:14 PM

This is just a lot of noise and bullshit. Killing civilians was the point and the ONLY point of the fire bombing raids in Germany and Japan and was the only point of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan..

Prove it. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit Military-industrial targets. So was Dresden.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 05:21 PM

Would you shoot yourself in the head with your M1 Garand to stop a Nazi stormtrooper from bayonetting you in the gut? No, of course not, so thus that means you have conceded my point and thus "I win". :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
This question is not analogous. It was not a choice between killing ourselves or the enemy, it was a choice between fighting the enemy like men or attacking women and children instead.

A better question would be whether I would be willing to kill that stormtrooper's children rather than let him kill me. The answer is no. I would rather be killed than kill children.
Your scenario is specious and is not based upon reality. Killing my own children wouldn't have stopped that war, thus my unwillingness to do so concedes nothing.
This is just a pointless evasion of the question. Imagine that your children happened to be visiting Nagasaki right before the attack and you knew you would have no ability to get them out. Would you still make the decision to drop the bomb?

Personally, I can't find a way to convince myself that killing other people's children is any less reprehensible than killing my own. If there's a God, he agrees with me.
Are you drunk?
Am I slurring my words?

No. I don't drink.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 05:23 PM

Prove it. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit Military-industrial targets. So was Dresden.
That's your assertion. Your burden.

wolfstu

08-06-2005, 05:23 PM

Prove it. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit Military-industrial targets. So was Dresden.

In order to destroy the military targets in dresden, as it necessary to do this:Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works.

I suspect few of those 24,866 houses were legitimate military targets.

If one is trying to destroy factories in Hiroshima, does one need also destory virtually every building in town and vaporize tens of thousands of people in their homes?

kunilou

08-06-2005, 05:34 PM

Something that didn't involve the deliberate slaughter of civilians.

Like what? Invasion? Blockade? Continued conventional bombing?

Suppose a blockade had caused food shortages and disease that killed 500,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would that have been morally acceptable than the 330,00 deaths from the nuclear bombs because the deaths weren't "deliberate"?

If a bombing raid destroyed an oil storage facility starting a fire that destroyed an entire city, killing thousands, is that more "moral" than fire-bombing the city?

If you decide to invade, is it "moral" to select an invasion target with civilians in the path, or would you only invade a deserted strip of shoreline, even if it was less likely to succeed?

And while you're weighing those moral options, consider this. If you're in command of an army, is your moral duty to minimize civilian casualties of the enemy, even if it exposes your troops to greater danger, or is it more moral to do what you can to minimize the danger to the lives you're directly responsible for?

Or, is your moral duty to decide among a group of terrible scenarios and choose the one that you hope accomplishes your goal most efficiently with what you hope is the least loss of life overall?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 05:43 PM

Quitting is always an option. We could have just called it a day like we did with Nam. It wasn't like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor.

I don't see why it's necessary to do any more than what is necessary for self-defense.

Silentgoldfish

08-06-2005, 05:59 PM

monstro

08-06-2005, 06:01 PM

In 20 years, some Saudi Arabian radio talkshow host is going to say that 9/11 benefitted Americans and therefore no one owes them an apology. And he will be able to point to things that have indirectly resulted from 9/11 and the War on Terrorism--like the loss of "dangerous" civil liberties and increased power of the fundamentalist Christians in government--as evidence of this.

I expect lots of people on this thread to agree with him.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 06:18 PM

Whether you're playing devil's advocate or not, you are fucking scum.
Still no substantive response, huh?

Yes, I have a sense of right and wrong which I value more than mindless flag-waving. I guess that makes me scum. I don't care.

Frank

08-06-2005, 06:24 PM

Quitting is always an option. We could have just called it a day like we did with Nam. It wasn't like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor.
This is the stupidest and most ignorant statement I have ever seen from you.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 06:30 PM

Frank

08-06-2005, 06:38 PM

Why? If we had no immediate defensive reason to continue the war with Japan, then why not just quit and go home? I'm not talking about surrendering, just leaving. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean that seriously. What WAS the reason that we had to keep fighting Japan? I really don't know.
Well, they had set on a war of agression and territorial conquest with racial overtones just as had the Germans. Do you believe we should not have fought the Germans? Among many other places captured by the Japanese was the Phillipines, at the time a territory of ours. Do you believe we should have left the Filipinos to their fate? At what point after Pearl Harbor do you believe we were no longer in danger? The day after, a year later, when?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 06:55 PM

I don't have a problem with driving them out of US territories. After that, I don't care.

As to whether we should have fought the Germans...I don't know. That's a tough one. On principle I don't support non-defensive wars, but stopping genocide seems to a good reason to make an exception.

Squink

08-06-2005, 07:34 PM

It wasn't like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor.Dec 1941 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/timeline/) War in the Philippines begins with Japanese air attacks; much of the American bomber force is destroyed on the ground at Clark Field.

Japan takes Guam and Wake Island in the central Pacific.

In the Philippines: Japanese forces take Manila; American and Filipino troops withdraw to Bataan peninsula.

Ravenman

08-06-2005, 07:42 PM

DtC: I have always recognized that you were outspoken in your beliefs, which I respect. But your arguments on this page of the thread are a shining example of grade-A assholery. You posit an absolutely rediculous question, based upon your own moral view of the world, and then proclaim over and over again that you "win" because nobody will play your stupid "let's ask a morally repugnant and loaded question" game?

Well, I'll play ball. No, I would not burn my own children to death to end a war. I would rather march myself off to the recruiting office to see that my children had a chance to grow up in peace.

And if I joined up in a armed struggle of such enormous consequence as WW2, I would go knowing full well that I'd be killing humans who were probably good people, and I wouldn't like to think about that. And I would also realize that there might be a chance that I would kill innocent women and children. And I would hate that. But yes, I would be willing to do that to stuggle against aggression and injustice, and in the hope that my family would live a better life because of it.

All in all, I would take some solace knowing that I did not want to kill innocent people, rather than making a rational decision to murder my own flesh and blood to hopefully achieve the same goal.

Your view is that if you can't bring yourself to kill your own children, then you cannot justify risking the lives of children elsewhere. (I honestly wonder, if your concern for your fellow man is so sincere, why you blithely and seriously posit that the US should have simply given up and gone home after the threat to the US had been extinguished, knowing full well that the Japanese were using the heel of their imperialist boot to grind to dust untolled numbers of Chinese, Burmese, and Indonesian innocents. But I imagine you have some indignant answer for that, too.)

Well, I don't subscribe to your moral philosophy, and I expect that very few people around here would, either. I guess you win again. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back one more time for recognizing yourself as a genius and model humanitarian. I hope your delusions of saintliness massage your ego very well.

But I hope you can put aside your holier-than-thou attitude for one second to consider that every day, people make choices to prefer their kin over those they don't know. I've been to countries in which innocent young children are living in filth and squalor that I would never, ever want any of my family or loved ones to be subjected to for even a day. I could not stand making my family drink from shit infested water supplies or suffer from the bites of malarial mosquitos. Yet, I tacitly allow untold millions of infants to be subjected to just that, simply because my life consists mostly of going to work, driving my car, typing on this computer, and playing golf once in a while. I wish I could help those wretched children more than I do right now, but I'm not losing sleep over it. I would think that most of the world is in my shoes, even though my shoes may be fancier than 95% of the rest of the world's population. (Thankfully, I must note, I have a job which, in a very small and indirect way, helps reduce misery for these types of people.)

On second thought, don't respond to the thought I suggested. Your putrid arrogance has already stunk up this place too much, and there's no call for any more of it.

Neurotik

08-06-2005, 07:47 PM

A better question would be whether I would be willing to kill that stormtrooper's children rather than let him kill me. The answer is no. I would rather be killed than kill children.
Oh, oh, can I play, too?

Would you be willing to kill that stormtrooper's children, rather than let him kill your children?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:00 PM

DtC: I have always recognized that you were outspoken in your beliefs, which I respect. But your arguments on this page of the thread are a shining example of grade-A assholery. You posit an absolutely rediculous [sic] question, based upon your own moral view of the world, and then proclaim over and over again that you "win" because nobody will play your stupid "let's ask a morally repugnant and loaded question" game?
It's a completely legitimate question and that's exactly why it pisses everyone off. And is there something wrong with having a moral view of the world?
I would also realize that there might be a chance that I would kill innocent women and children. And I would hate that. But yes, I would be willing to do that to stuggle against aggression and injustice, and in the hope that my family would live a better life because of it.
As soon as you do that, you lose the struggle against injustice and become part of the problem. You can't beat evil with evil.
Your view is that if you can't bring yourself to kill your own children, then you cannot justify risking the lives of children elsewhere.
correct. And it's a bullet proof position.
(I honestly wonder, if your concern for your fellow man is so sincere, why you blithely and seriously posit that the US should have simply given up and gone home after the threat to the US had been extinguished, knowing full well that the Japanese were using the heel of their imperialist boot to grind to dust untolled numbers of Chinese, Burmese, and Indonesian innocents. But I imagine you have some indignant answer for that, too.)
None of our business.
Well, I don't subscribe to your moral philosophy, and I expect that very few people around here would, either. I guess you win again. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back one more time for recognizing yourself as a genius and model humanitarian. I hope your delusions of saintliness massage your ego very well.
I don't care if anyone agrees with me and my declarations of "victory" were only in response to those who were calling me names without offering any substantive responses to my arguments.
But I hope you can put aside your holier-than-thou attitude for one second to consider that every day, people make choices to prefer their kin over those they don't know. I've been to countries in which innocent young children are living in filth and squalor that I would never, ever want any of my family or loved ones to be subjected to for even a day.
Congratulations. So have . I spent two years in Liberia.
I could not stand making my family drink from shit infested water supplies or suffer from the bites of malarial mosquitos.[ Yet, I tacitly allow untold millions of infants to be subjected to just that, simply because my life consists mostly of going to work, driving my car, typing on this computer, and playing golf once in a while.
How do you "allow" it? How is that your fault?
I wish I could help those wretched children more than I do right now, but I'm not losing sleep over it. I would think that most of the world is in my shoes, even though my shoes may be fancier than 95% of the rest of the world's population. (Thankfully, I must note, I have a job which, in a very small and indirect way, helps reduce misery for these types of people.)
Don't make my position more grandiose or idealistic than it is. I'm not suggesting that anyone has a moral obligation to save the world. I'm just asking them not to carpet bomb women and children.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:02 PM

Oh, oh, can I play, too?

Would you be willing to kill that stormtrooper's children, rather than let him kill your children?
Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:06 PM

Your view is that if you can't bring yourself to kill your own children, then you cannot justify risking the lives of children elsewhere.
I just realized this is a distortion of my position. I'm not talking about "risking the lives" of other people's children, I'm talking about specifically targeting them. I'm talking about killing them on purpose, not by accident.

Neurotik

08-06-2005, 08:25 PM

Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though.
That's silly. We long ago moved into abstraction. But I'll change the question for you.

Would you kill the soldier's child if you knew that by doing so it would stop the soldier from killing five children of other people?

Or, here's a fun one, would you kill your 19 year-old son in order to stop a war?

Squink

08-06-2005, 08:26 PM

Our children were not endangered by the Japanese
Our children were in the Phillipines, and on Wake Island (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/Wake/USMC-M-Wake-IV.html) Pay special attention to the link's entries for 12 January 1942, and 7 October, 1943.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:33 PM

That's silly. We long ago moved into abstraction. But I'll change the question for you.

Would you kill the soldier's child if you knew that by doing so it would stop the soldier from killing five children of other people?
No.
Or, here's a fun one, would you kill your 19 year-old son in order to stop a war?
No.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:35 PM

Our children were in the Phillipines, and on Wake Island (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/Wake/USMC-M-Wake-IV.html) Pay special attention to the link's entries for 12 January 1942, and 7 October, 1943.
I already said I didn't object to driving them out of US territories. We could have done that without incinerating babies in Tokyo.

Neurotik

08-06-2005, 08:35 PM

No.
So you have no right to kill anyone else's 19 year old son to stop a war, correct?

Squink

08-06-2005, 08:39 PM

I already said I didn't object to driving them out of US territories. We could have done that without incinerating babies in Tokyo. Would you have negotiated for the return of US prisoners? What would you have offered to get on their good side?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:44 PM

So you have no right to kill anyone else's 19 year old son to stop a war, correct?
Not if he's a civilian.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 08:46 PM

Would you have negotiated for the return of US prisoners? What would you have offered to get on their good side?
I'm sure I could think of something that didn't involve incinerating babies.

Sam Stone

08-06-2005, 08:56 PM

I already said I didn't object to driving them out of US territories. We could have done that without incinerating babies in Tokyo.

So if your stated policy is to simply 'drive out' anyone who invaded you and then unilaterally declare a state of peace to exist, what in hell is the disincentive for them to attack you again, and again, and again... (see: Israel 1956, 1967, 1973).

The problem with your attitude is that it causes war. There are bad people in the world. When they face very few consequences for taking aggressive actions against you, you encourage them to continue being bad.

Had Japan simply been pushed off of the Phillippines, what would have stopped them from simply taking it again once the liberating forces departed? Or from laying siege to those forces?

After all, Pearl Harbor happened precisely because Japan felt that the U.S. would act the way you wanted them to act. Faced with a loss of a major portion of the fleet, the hope was that Japan could, in a series of lightning strikes against various islands expand its sphere of control in the east, and the U.S. would do nothing to stop it. Yamamoto knew better - too bad he didn't have the emperor's ear.

Germany invaded Czechoslovakia because he had ample reason to believe that the rest of Europe would simply let him do it. Had a forceful stand been taken at the first sign of German belligerance, perhaps WWII could have been stopped before it escalated into a world conflict.

Sorry, but your policies, even though they may be grounded in a honest desire for peace and moral action, have historically had the opposite effect. Or as the old saying goes, for evil to triumph, all that is required is that good men do nothing.

Had the Japanese empire simply been pushed back out of U.S. territory and left intact, it would have simply built up more forces and attacked elsewhere. And eventually, perhaps they would have had the Bomb, and then we could have had a repeat of Pearl Harbor, except this time with nukes over western cities.

P.S. The Japanese were truly horrible back then. Read up on the rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March.

RickJay

08-06-2005, 09:02 PM

Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though.
Evidently you are badly underinformed in terms of what the Japanese Empire did to children in the lands it conquered.

The Allies' greatest sin was not going to war against Japan much sooner. If we're playing the "would you kill children/let children be killed" game, I may as well point out that you obviously don't care about Chinese children. You must be a racist. I mean, that's the obvious and simplistic view of your position that nothing had to be done after Pearl Harbor.

I can find as many moral problems with your supposedly moral position as you can find with anyone else's.

More civilians were killed by fire bombing cities in Germany and Japan than were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. All told, the US killed something like 800,000 civilians (some estimates are higher). The demoralizing effects of our terroristic attacks on cities like Tokyo (100,000 dead civilians) and Dresden (400,000 dead civilians) were instrumental in ending the war. It was a deliberate and calculated strategy.
How does this paragraph prove your claim that civilian bombing was THE major American route to victory? (You also seem to be giving the United States credit for all Allied bombing, which is of course wrong. For a guy who claims to not be a flag-waver you're sure prone to forgetting that there were Allies outisde the USA.)

Do you have some objective criteria by which the civilians killed in area bombing were a greater part of Allied victory than the defeat of the Japanese navy and conquest of her possessions in the PAcific, AND Britain/India/Australia/New Zealand defeating the Japanese in southeast Asia, AND the Allied destruction of the German army in France and subsequent drive into Germany, AND the campaigns in Africa and Italy that destroyed Italy's ability to wage war and drew off many German divisions, AND the Soviet destruction of most of the German Army? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

Did you know that probably the single biggest effect of the bombing campign over Germany was not the killing of civilians but the annihilation of most of the German air force? True fact. Did you figure that into your calculations?

Now, do you really still think that area bombing was THE MAIN REASON the United States ended up on the winning side?

And if it wasn't a major route to victory, then how can it be justified?
Presumably winning a full scale war requires many different strategies, some larger than others. Obviously whether area bombing was the primary route to victory (which it obviously was not and it's ridiculous to claim it was) or a secondary route, that's independent of whether or not it's justified. Dropping propaganda leaflets over France (I have one, it's really cool - like a little newspaper) was obviously a minor part of the war effort. Does that make it terrorism? "Mon Dieu, Jacques, ze Allies are dropping newspreent on us again! Zut alors! Terroristes!"

I mean, saying that area bombing was the main way the Allies won is just fucking stupid. Let me ask you this; could the Allies have won by focusing their efforts on defeating the Germans and Japanese at arms? Sure; they would have done so eventually, though it might have taken longer and probably would have killed more civilians. Could they have won exclusively through area bombing? Not a chance, Vance. Japan couldn't even have been reached by bombers without many military victories; Germany, absent the pressure of ground war that absorbed most of its industrial and military effort, could have easily beaten the bombing campaign.

I'm actually closer to your side of the issue, Dio; I think WWII area bombing was morally... well, very questionable. Allied civilians weren't even all that thrilled about it at the time. But yo're badly, badly ignorant of a lot of the facts. You don't seem to know a lot of the fundamental facts about how the war progressed, and you seem more interested in stirring up shit than seriously raising a question of morality.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-06-2005, 09:36 PM

Sam and RickJay, I respect your points and I realize that it was a more complex decision than I've made it sound. However, these days we have no problem saying that deliberately targeting civilians is off the table as a strategy and we decry any entity that does target civilians. It seems to me that the world has not become less complex since WWII and that if we can follow that policy now we could have followed it then.

Having said that, I'm going to retire from this thread (or maybe run away would be more accurate) still convinced that dropping the bomb wasn't necessary but I won't pass any moral judgement on anyone (the majority, actually) who thinks otherwise.

If you're wondering whether you've at least made me think, you have.

Rodd Hill

08-06-2005, 09:46 PM

Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though.

Incorrect.

In addition to the cites already offered about the attacks on US citizens (both military and civilian) in Hawaii and Phillippine territories, the Japanese seized two islands in the Aleutians, Attu and Kiska, and also bombed Dutch Harbour, closer to Alaska, killing US service personnel and civilians.

http://www.sitnews.org/JuneAllen/060302_forgotten_war.html

Japanese submarines shelled the US mainland in California and Oregon, torpedoed and sunk merchant ships without warning in US coastal waters, even dropped incendiary bombs (to little effect) in Oregon and Washington State on two occasions, using a small sub-launched reconnaisance aircraft.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/wwii/blwestcoastwarzone/
http://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html

They developed and launched the world's first intercontinental unguided missile, declaring environmental war on North America. Fortunately they did not mate the Fugo balloon bomb (built partly by women and children excused from school for the purpose) with their biological and chemical weapons tested on civilians and POWs in China (including Allied POWs).

http://www.project1947.com/gfb/fugolinks.htm

By taking an Isolationist stance (i.e. "only kicking them off US territory, then quitting,") all you do is encourage the aggressor to re-arm and try again with a bigger force, or at another time when you are distracted, or busy in another theatre of war. The Japanese military junta would have misinterpreted (perhaps wilfully) such a move as weakness, a disinclination to fight...and they would have bided their time, and struck again.

In my opinion.

What Exit?

08-06-2005, 10:08 PM

By taking an Isolationist stance (i.e. "only kicking them off US territory, then quitting,") all you do is encourage the aggressor to re-arm and try again with a bigger force, or at another time when you are distracted, or busy in another theatre of war. The Japanese military junta would have misinterpreted (perhaps wilfully) such a move as weakness, a disinclination to fight...and they would have bided their time, and struck again.
In my opinion.
You mean like the end of WWI that left many Germans feeling like the Govt. sold them out, so they rearmed and required a complete arse-kicking to de-militarize?
Hitler and other actually believed this crap. I think we learned a lesson from WWI that they needed to be completely beaten.
I said it earlier and I'll say it again, why didn't the corrupt and very militaristic Japanese Emperor and High Command surrender once they were beaten back to the home Island? Why fight on? I’ll place the deaths on their souls/Psyches not ours. Those people could have been saved. They started a war and then lost the war and still would not give up. There was no question about needing to convince them to surrender!!!!
Darn, I am actually letting this get me angry. I wish we lived in a world were no one wanted war or terror. If you start a war, be prepared for all consequences.

DrDeth

08-06-2005, 10:23 PM

Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though.

They indeed were. The Japanese launched balloon bobs that killed a family - I think it was in oregon. And, they were working on the same weapon to launch germ warfare onto the USA. As you might know, germ warfare is especillay dangerous to the very young and the very old. Thus our children were endangered by the Japanese. We also had children in Alaska and Hawaii- and some small parts of Alaska were invaded, and Hawaii was a target. Not to mention the Japanese did shell our coast.

Of course- we could have "just quit". That would have left many thousands of Chinese and Phillipinos under the thumb of the Japanese. But I guess in your mind- if they aren't white- they aren't 'ours' and then the children don't count, eh? And you know the kinds of things the Japanese 'special wepons" dudes did to the Chinese.

Of course, if we quit against Germany, they would have killed several million more Jews and Slavs- including children. Don't they count?

The rockets, missles and other "terror" weapons would have continued to kill British children- but I guess they don't count either. :dubious: Not to mention that the Nazi's were working on a rocket (and bombers) that could reach the USA- and their own atomic bomb. True, they were far behind us, but if we "just quit" they woudl have finally gotten it to work- and BOOM- there goes London.

Riiight "just quit." Only a complete moron would suggest leaving Tojo or Hitler in power.

Rodd Hill

08-06-2005, 10:27 PM

To clarify a little:

the tragedy is that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't deserve to be vaporised; any more than the civilians in Dresden, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Coventry, or my mother in Greenock's "mini-blitz" (she survived, obviously).

They had no voice in Japan's military junta, or their country's march to war...but they sure as hell wound up paying the price. Some of the military at the top still wanted to carry on, even after two atomic bombs--they even tried to steal the recording of the Emperor's "surrender" speech the night before it was broadcast, for crying out loud!

As awful as the bombs were, they allowed the Japanese to surrender to a force that was almost supernatural in its power--perhaps this left a tiny psychological loophole; how can you fight such a weapon?

We should remember those people gratefully. I honestly believe that the stark example of what happened to those two cities did have some slight cautionary effect on the realpolitik of the cold war. Maybe--just maybe--the memory of those irradiated ruins and survivors with skin hanging off gave momentary pause to some of the more hawkish leaders at times of friction in the 50s and 60s.

And, yes, I think that they also--unknowingly, involuntarily--saved many thousands of Japanese and Allied lives in 1946-47. That's my opinion, and I know that there are many who argue on both sides of the argument of collapse vs fight-to-the finish. I fall firmly on the side that says Operation Olympic would have been the bloodiest operation of the entire war.

The defensive plan called for the use of the Civilian Volunteer Corps, a mobilization not of volunteers but of all boys and men 15 to 60 and all girls and women 17 to 40, except for those exempted as unfit. They were trained with hand grenades, swords, sickles, knives, fire hooks, and bamboo spears. These civilians, led by regular forces, were to make extensive use of night infiltration patrols armed with light weapons and demolitions.(43) Also, the Japanese had not prepared, and did not intend to prepare, any plan for the evacuation of civilians or for the declaration of open cities.(44) The southern third of Kyushu had a population of 2,400,000 within the 3,500 square miles included in the Prefectures of Kagoshima and Miyazaki.(45) The defensive plan was to actively defend the few selected beach areas at the beach, and then to mass reserves for an all-out counterattack if the invasion forces succeeded in winning a beachhead.(46)

from:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm#N_11_

If the destruction of all those people isn't horrible, then the word has no meaning. But I'd like to think that somehow, their deaths have wrought some good--not according to some plan thought up by generals, but in the way time and history have unfolded.

08-06-2005, 10:44 PM

The main problem with Diogenes the Cynic (and others who take up this position) is that they are time warpers. They are attempting to project their morality, a morality grounded in todays world to a time in the past...as if todays morality is the be all and end all, the peak of human advancement. It just doesn't work. WWII was a different time with a different code, the US of 1940 was not the US of today and there is no 'right' moral code that transends tiem and space. 100 years from now it might be that the moral code of today (including Dio's) is looked at in horror...or its possible that because of dire circumstance in that time a harsher code is in effect.

I was actually thinking of making a thread on this. I watched a show the other day called The Final Battle on (I think) Discovery International. Basically it went through recently de-classified documents in both the US and Japanese militaries to discuss this entire debate. In that documentation its clear the Japanese were preparing to make a last stand...a last stand that would encompass both the military and civilian sectors. Their battle plan was brutal...to inflict overwhelming casualties on the US to force them to more favorable peace terms...peace terms that would allow the Japanese empire to continue, if in a reduced form. I saw the battle plans for Olympic, and on the show they went over the Japanese preparations...and it would have been a blood bath. The estimates on the show varied (some said a million allied casualties and something on the order of 5 million Japanese civilian/military casualties...the consensus, based on the number of purple hearts ordered for the operation and projections from what happened on Okinawa seemed to come down to around 450,000 allied casualties and 1.5 million Japanese) but it was going to be bloody. The allies plan was to take the lower island and turn it into a giant runway...and then bomb the rest of Japan until we could build up for the next phase...Coronet.

Leaving aside Dio's complete fantasy of just pushing the Japanese out of former US/Allied territory and then calling the game and saying all was cool, realistically I'd say that over all for both Japan this was about as 'win/win' as you could get in a totally fucked up situation. There was no way in hell that the US was going to ever just stop fighting until Japan had surrendered...and no way in hell that Japan was going to surrender despite revisionists who don't understand the basic fragmentary nature of the Japanese government of the time, nor the grip the militarist had on said government. So...it was going to come down to an invasion. Said invasion was going to be EXTREMELY grim and bloody (we won't even get into the fact that 1000 allied service men were dieing a day in Japanese POW camps, or the fact that the Japanese unclassified documents clearly showed that if the main island was invaded the Japanese planned to kill them all...something like 150,000 men I believe if memory serves from the show).

-XT

Rodd Hill

08-06-2005, 10:57 PM

Very true, xtisme.

"One Hundred Million Souls For The Emperor" was not just an empty propaganda slogan.

I can't help think of all those Japanese women and kids with goddam sharpened bamboo sticks, waiting in spider holes for the US, or British, or Australian, or Canadian troops. Jesus. Vietnam 20 years early.

All this was after the initial beach assault, of course:

As the invasion fleet reached the landing areas, the second phase would commence. The 19 surviving Japanese destroyers would attempt to attack the American transports at the invasion beaches. Suicide attack boats, called "Shinyo," carrying 550 pounds of explosives in their bows, would strike from hiding places along the shore. The Shinyo were aiming for any craft carrying troops. The Japanese Navy and Army had an estimated combined total of 3,300 special suicide attack boats. Finally, there would be rows of suicide frogmen called "Fukuryu" in their diving gear 30 feet or so beneath the water. The outermost row of Fukuryu would release anchored mines or carry mines to craft that passed nearby. Closer to shore, there would be three rows of divers, arrayed so that they were about 60 feet apart. Underwater lairs for the Fukuryu were to be made of reinforced concrete with steel doors. As many as 18 divers could be stationed in each underwater "foxhole".(26) Clad in a diving suit and breathing from oxygen tanks, a Fukuryu carried an explosive charge, which was mounted on a stick with a contact fuse. He was to swim up to landing craft and detonate the charge. The Navy had hoped for 4,000 men to be trained and equipped for this suicide force by October.

Again, from the Federation of American Scientists page:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm#N_11_

Squink

08-06-2005, 11:53 PM

Very true, xtisme.
I can't help think of all those Japanese women and kids...Innocent kids, if you please, Mr. Hill. Please don't rock the mythos. ;)

elfbabe

08-07-2005, 12:12 AM

Wow, I came in here thinking that dropping the atomic bomb was a bad decision, but probably better than invading Japan. Now, thanks to that very spirited and factual rebuttal of Dio's "Think of the children!" argument, I think it was the best of the options we had and definitely better than invading Japan.

Consider ignorance fought.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 12:27 AM

Fuck that. I'm still right. I'd rather kill somebody that's fighting back than incinerate babies any day.

I doubt this civilian stand for the Emperor would have actually panned out anyway. There are usually all sorts of wild ass contingency plans drawn up during wars. That doesn't mean all those civilians were actually going to go along with it.

What Exit?

08-07-2005, 12:49 AM

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 12:57 AM

We're the ones who did the killing.

08-07-2005, 01:00 AM

I doubt this civilian stand for the Emperor would have actually panned out anyway. There are usually all sorts of wild ass contingency plans drawn up during wars. That doesn't mean all those civilians were actually going to go along with it.

Um. Have you perhaps reviewed the Okinawa campaign? If thats too far back in history for you have you ever taken a close look at what happened in Vietnam...or perhaps Iraq today? What do you base your statement that the Japanese people wouldn't go along 'with it'? Do you have any rational basis for that or is it just because thats how you WANT it to be? Because from what I've seen the Japanese people would have grimly done whatever they were told to do when their home islands were invaded...especially since they were pretty throughly indoctrinated with the concept that the 'white man' would kill them all. Ever seen footage of Japanese women jumping off cliffs with their children in their arms...or footage of civilians fighting soldiers with farm impliments? Seen the footage of Japanese soldiers, wounded horribly but tieing grenades to their bodies so that when they were wounded they would kill a few more? I doubt you have...or if you have I doubt the reality has sunk in.

I think you are living in a fantasy world on this subject. However its appearent that you are immune to any arguement and will just keep babbling about "incinerate babies"...and the idiotic bald statement that you are 'right' over and over again. Victory through repetition I suppose.

-XT

Silentgoldfish

08-07-2005, 01:03 AM

I think you are living in a fantasy world on this subject. However its appearent that you are immune to any arguement and will just keep babbling about "incinerate babies"...and the idiotic bald statement that you are 'right' over and over again. Victory through repetition I suppose.
-XT

That's why I went straight for the insults. You're wasting your time trying to get this moron to see reason.

08-07-2005, 01:05 AM

We're the ones who did the killing.

You really are a loon on this subject aren't you, Dio? There really is no point in even talking to you about this. On some subjects you are an intelligent and insightful poster...but on others you are just batshit crazy. This is one of them.

-XT

MaxTheVool

08-07-2005, 01:06 AM

What's wrong with my logic?

What's irrational is the need that Americans have to always try to justify themeselves as the good guys and never admit they can do anything wrong.

This is the thing that DtC posted this thread that REALLY has me steaming. The atomic bomb debate is a difficult and divisive one. I happen to think that dropping the bomb was (on the whole) the right decision. That does NOT make me some brain-dead jingoistic moron.

08-07-2005, 01:10 AM

That's why I went straight for the insults. You're wasting your time trying to get this moron to see reason.

On this subject I'd have to agree with you...though I try and avoid insults as a first line even in The Pit. But he's not reachable on this. Anyone who would make the bald statement that "We're the ones who did the killing." as if events happened in a vaccume (and not taking into account any other factors...like, oh, say that though killing 150,000 Japanese in the two cities is certainly not ideal, the estimated million plus deaths the Japanese WOULD have suffered, along with say half a million allied dead, is probably just a tad bit worse).

Its like argueing with a hard core fundamentalist about evolution...some folks just can't be reached on some subjects. They are immune to facts, don't care about other factors, and want to see the world as black and white. C'est la vie.

-XT

What Exit?

08-07-2005, 01:14 AM

We're the ones who did the killing.
I'm going to try a scenario.
Terrorist kills dozens in a sneak attack, includes a few kids.
Terrorist flees back to home but police follow. He has a few comrades.
Along the way Police fight and kill comrades.
Terrorist makes it home but is now isolated. Just him, his wife, his mom and 6 kids.
FBI & Police surround house and demand his surrender. He not only refuses but shoots at the police.
Police warn him they will use brute force to get him out.
He refuses and shoots and kills a cop.
Police shoot bullets into house, miss the nut with the rifle but injure a child and the mother.
He still refuses to surrender and shoots another cop, thankfully not fatal. Cops have had enough and shoot a grenade in, blows up chunk of house, instantly killing 2 kids and wife. Terrorist finally surrenders.
The death of the children was solely the FBI's fault?
Isn't the Terrorist responsible for the possible over zealous use of extreme force?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 01:22 AM

Soley the FBI's fault, yes. There is no need, in your scenario, to attack the house at all. They can just wait him out. Bombing the house makes them no better than he is.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 01:24 AM

That's why I went straight for the insults. You're wasting your time trying to get this moron to see reason.
You went to the insults because you had nothing else.

Silentgoldfish

08-07-2005, 01:27 AM

You went to the insults because you had nothing else.

No, the information provided by Rickjay, Roddhill, and DrDeth isn't classified, and I had though pretty widely known. The fact that you can keep up your idiocy despite this public knowledge being available for decades shows that any attempt by me to argue with you on any level would be a waste of my time.

It certainly was a waste of Rickjay's, Roddhill's, and DrDeth's.

But go ahead, declare victory, have a wank, go nuts. :rolleyes:

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 01:28 AM

Um. Have you perhaps reviewed the Okinawa campaign? If thats too far back in history for you have you ever taken a close look at what happened in Vietnam...or perhaps Iraq today? What do you base your statement that the Japanese people wouldn't go along 'with it'? Do you have any rational basis for that or is it just because thats how you WANT it to be?
Because I find the idea completely ludicrous. Most human beings with no combat experience will surrender in a heart beat. This Olympus Plan or whatever it's called simply does not conform to the reality of how human beings will behave. It sounds to me like YOU need to believe this in order to justify the bombings.
However its appearent that you are immune to any arguement and will just keep babbling about "incinerate babies"[/quote]
That's what it comes down to, isn't it? That's the part we can't get around. I'm never going to say I think it's ok to kill babies. Sue me.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 01:31 AM

No, the information provided by Rickjay, Roddhill, and DrDeth isn't classified, and I had though pretty widely known. The fact that you can keep up your idiocy despite this public knowledge being available for decades shows that any attempt by me to argue with you on any level would be a waste of my time.

It certainly was a waste of Rickjay's, Roddhill's, and DrDeth's.

But go ahead, declare victory, have a wank, go nuts. :rolleyes:
The information wasn't provided by YOU, though, was it, moron? All YOU can do is name call and hide behind smarter posters.

What Exit?

08-07-2005, 01:31 AM

Soley the FBI's fault, yes. There is no need, in your scenario, to attack the house at all. They can just wait him out. Bombing the house makes them no better than he is.

Ok, I know where you are coming from and completely disagree with you, but I respect your belief.
Not the same scenario, but I think I know what your answer would be to Waco and several other similar situations.

How about the USA civil war. Should the Union have just let the South Secede and continue slavery to avoid war?
I ask because I have become fascinated. I am a bit of a hawk and believe that war has done good along with great evil. I am not sure about your reaction to Civil war.
I predict 1 of 2 answers.
Union should have avoid war, they just wanted their own form of government or Union was right to stop slavery but Sherman’s march was overkill and unjustified.

If you would be so kind, please find time to answer this.

Everyone killing Dio, give him a break, he seems to be a true and very strong pacifist and truly lives in a different world than most of us.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 01:38 AM

Ok, I know where you are coming from and completely disagree with you, but I respect your belief.
Not the same scenario, but I think I know what your answer would be to Waco and several other similar situations.

How about the USA civil war. Should the Union have just let the South Secede and continue slavery to avoid war?
I ask because I have become fascinated. I am a bit of a hawk and believe that war has done good along with great evil. I am not sure about your reaction to Civil war.
I predict 1 of 2 answers.
Union should have avoid war, they just wanted their own form of government or Union was right to stop slavery but Sherman’s march was overkill and unjustified.

If you would be so kind, please find time to answer this.
I think the South had the right to secede. Slavery was evil but I think it should have been fought non-violently and that it would have ended in the south eventually anyway.

08-07-2005, 01:39 AM

Because I find the idea completely ludicrous. Most human beings with no combat experience will surrender in a heart beat. This Olympus Plan or whatever it's called simply does not conform to the reality of how human beings will behave. It sounds to me like YOU need to believe this in order to justify the bombings.

But you are speaking from ignorance. Olympic was the US plan for the initial invasion...it obviously had nothing to do with whatever plans the Japanese had. THEIR plan called for a series of deep bunkers and sighted artillary along the beaches they felt we would most likely invade (and they got them pretty much right). In addition they had husbanded something like 4000 aircraft for suicide runs at the fleet, boats and even subs for the same purpose. In addition they were training civilians how to attack the invaders with basically farm impliments.

As for the rest, it might not conform to YOUR reality, but unfortunately it does conform to actual reality. Its pretty obvious you haven't a clue what happened on Okinawa do you...or what the ramifications of that were for any invasion actually touching the home islands. Like I said, this is like debating a flat earther or a UFO nut...or someone who rabidly believes that evolution is wrong and god created the world 4001 years ago on a tuesday.

That's what it comes down to, isn't it? That's the part we can't get around. I'm never going to say I think it's ok to kill babies. Sue me.

I freely acknowledge that you are beyond reach and immune to any arguements on this subject. Its pointless to even attempt to unbury your head from the sand and the best thing is just to let you keep it there. As I recall the last time this debate happened in GD it was much the same thing. And I fully expect that the next time this subject comes up you will happily get beat up some more and claim a victory. :smack:

-XT

What Exit?

08-07-2005, 01:43 AM

I think the South had the right to secede. Slavery was evil but I think it should have been fought non-violently and that it would have ended in the south eventually anyway.

Wow, thank you for answering.
I would love to find a descendant of a salve that would agree with you. I am doubtful they could be found.
I hope someday humanity as a whole becomes as peaceful as you, but I know I will never be. Goodnight. I will bow out and allow naming calling to proceed unimpeded by me.

What Exit?

08-07-2005, 01:45 AM

Wow, thank you for answering.
I would love to find a descendant of a salve that would agree with you. I am doubtful they could be found.
I hope someday humanity as a whole becomes as peaceful as you, but I know I will never be. Goodnight. I will bow out and allow naming calling to proceed unimpeded by me.

Oof: salve was suppose to be slave. I am way too tired. This was very interesting.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 01:47 AM

08-07-2005, 01:58 AM

Just for the record, I was only claiming victory in the instances where I was being insulted without being substantively rebutted. I said I respect the points that many of you (pretty much everyone but Silentgoldfish) have made, and I meant it. I said you've made me think and you have. I respect your views on this. I will not call you immoral because of them. I just want to agree to disagree. I don't want to pass judgement on anyone and I apologize if it seems like I've done that. I acknowledge that it's not a simple issue.

It did seem that way (to me anyway)...and did seem that you were claiming victory in the debate by fiat. I agree with you that on this subject its best to agree to disagree and move on as it really is a complex tangle of really fucked up choices none of which were good. Its one of those 'lesser of two evils' kind of thing.

Its also one of those things that its really not helpful to apply our present day outlook on the actions of those folks who had a different set of standards and 'morals'...if its ever appropriate at any time to judge historical events when filtered through our own morals and yardsticks. Just like today we blanche at 1900+ US dead in Iraq after 2+ years of fighting and Iraqi civilian/military/insurgent dead at something like 40,000+, during WWII there were BATTLES that saw that many dead and more...and air raids using conventional bombs that killed more civilians in a single nights bombing. It was a different time and place, with different standards and yardsticks...and it was a different war. Trying to judge the actions of the US or any other country is difficult...especially since you don't seem to know many of the underlieing issues or events that caused the decisions that were made by the folks who were there.

-XT

Diogenes the Cynic

08-07-2005, 02:09 AM

Trying to judge the actions of the US or any other country is difficult...especially since you don't seem to know many of the underlieing issues or events that caused the decisions that were made by the folks who were there.

I'm not a WWII buff. As knowledgeable as I may fancy myself in some areas, I have some huge black holes in others. I appreciate the information that you and others have provided in this area.

On an ironic note, I probably wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for the bomb. My maternal grandfather was one of those soldiers in the South Pacific who would have been involved in the invasion. My mom was a VJ baby. So if we hadn't dropped those bombs, there wouldn't be a Dio posting on this board.

I'm sure that's bound to recalibrate a few opinions about this issue. ;)

08-07-2005, 02:14 AM

I'm not a WWII buff. As knowledgeable as I may fancy myself in some areas, I have some huge black holes in others. I appreciate the information that you and others have provided in this area.

No worries. As I said, I find you quite engaging on other subjects like the evolution debates. Generally I lurk only in those threads because I would only be repeating what everyone else (well, the rational folks anyway) is pretty much saying and adding nothing new to the debate...and because frankly I don't know where you guys get the seemingly endless supplies of patients to keep debating these fools. But thats another story.

-XT

elfbabe

08-07-2005, 04:16 AM

Because I find the idea completely ludicrous. Most human beings with no combat experience will surrender in a heart beat.

...even when they're fighting to defend their homes and families from people they believe to be ruthless murderers?

BobLibDem

08-07-2005, 06:52 AM

we don't need to apologize, the bomb ended a war...it showed the world how terrible atomic weapons can be, and made everyone afraid to use them, and it forced Japan into a democracy...it was a win-win situation for everyone!!

Let's debunk the "forced Japan into a democracy" nonsense. Germany was not nuked. Germany became a democracy. Italy was not nuked. Italy became a democracy. Exactly what was it about the Japanese that only nuclear weapons could tranform their nation into a democracy?
The bomb was not needed to end the war (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm) why did President Truman and his chief adviser Secretary of State James Byrnes make it harder for Japan to surrender? Specifically, why did they remove assurances for the Japanese emperor from the July 1945 Potsdam Proclamation warning Japan to surrender? The assurances were strongly recommended by U.S. and British military leaders, and removing them, they knew, would make it all but impossible for Japan to end the war.

The US had long since been reading every Japanese electronic communication. The Japanese had been trying to negotiate peace through the USSR, the only power not then at war with it. Eisenhower was opposed to the use of the a-bomb, During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives

The above is from a Guide to Gar Alperovitz's The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm)

More from that cite:
The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air

Arnold's deputy Ira Eaker said Arnold told him:
When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.

The US had full control over the Japanese skies for some time. The Japanese military was in ruins. Eisenhower argued against its use, as did MacArthur and former president Hoover.
Curtis LeMay said at a press conference:
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

Saturday Review of Literature editor Norman Cousins also later reported that MacArthur told him he saw no military justification for using the atomic bomb, and that "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

This is the key. The Japanese were long willing to surrender on the sole condition of being able to keep their emperor. Truman withheld assurance for this condition in order to justify the use of the bomb.

The debate whether use of the bomb in Japan has made it less likely to be used since is more open. There may be a kernel of truth in that argument, but there is none in the others.

What Exit?

08-07-2005, 10:02 AM

[snip]
The US had full control over the Japanese skies for some time. The Japanese military was in ruins. Eisenhower argued against its use, as did MacArthur and former president Hoover.
Curtis LeMay said at a press conference:

This is the key. The Japanese were long willing to surrender on the sole condition of being able to keep their emperor. Truman withheld assurance for this condition in order to justify the use of the bomb.

The debate whether use of the bomb in Japan has made it less likely to be used since is more open. There may be a kernel of truth in that argument, but there is none in the others.

Right, If I even accept your statement that the only request Japan had was to keep their Emporer. With no military left, he should have been willing to step aside to save his people from just the conventional bombings. After dropping the 1st bomb, did he capitulate? No!!!!

Now back to the surrender: no cite on this bald statement.
The decision to drop the bombs was made by US President Harry S. Truman, and followed the loss of around 400,000 lives over 3½ years of direct US involvement in World War II, around half of which had been incurred in the war against Japan. Truman's officially stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

After the Hiroshima atomic attack (and before the Nagasaki atomic attack), President Truman issued the following statement:

"It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." [1]
As detailed near the end of this article, whether or not the bombings were justified has long been a contentious issue.

Here is
Potsdam Declaration (http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html)
let anyone who cares, read it and decide for themselves.

The issue of the Emperor was not a minor sticking point. The Declaration outlined why unconditional surrender was the only choice.
The War Staff & Emperor should have surrendered. Truman saved at least allied lives in dropping the bombs; he may have saved far more Japanese lives than you think.
If war had continued, USSR would have been more involved and consolidated a greater influence in the area.
Japan may have been split up more. It may not have been able to go on to be a single democratic nation. I think the bulk of your arguments are just parroting the anti-bomb side without thinking through the entire picture.

BobLibDem

08-07-2005, 11:15 AM

The US knew that Japan was trying to end the war. This site (http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm) summarizes it well:

* July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

*July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

* July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

* July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

* July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

* July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

*July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives)

This site (http://www.historyhappens.net/archival/hironag/hiroshimashad/magicintercepts.htm) has more substantiation:

The Magic summaries were deciphered intercepts of high-level foreign messages. Formerly classified Top Secret Ultra, these intercepts of Japanese communications were read daily by Truman and his top advisors <snip>

Tokyo considers surrender on basis of Atlantic Charter: In a message of 25 July (of which the last part is missing) Foreign Minister Togo instructed Ambassador Sato as follows:

<snip>

"The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter."

The Japanese were prepared to surrender on the basis of the Atlantic Charter. Eisenhower, LeMay, and MacArthur were all opposed to the use of the atomic bomb. To justify its use now is revisionist.

DrDeth

08-07-2005, 12:01 PM

DrDeth

08-07-2005, 12:05 PM

Just for the record, I was only claiming victory in the instances where I was being insulted without being substantively rebutted..

I quote "You realize that nothing you said rebuts my point. I win again. You admit that you wouldn't kill your own children. That means you're conceding my point. It's wrong to kill children. You know it. You don't have a comeback for it, and all you can do is spray saliva." post #76

You said this in response to my post #75: "Yes. We had to target industrial areas. If you don't target the enemies means of making war, you greatly increase your chance of losing it, or at the very least- increase the length of the war- damning even more people to death.

We had to win WWII. If we hadn't won it, it'd be our families in those death camps. The outcome of the war wasn't a foregone conclusion you know. We had a primary duty to our own families. Thus, anything less than full out war is immoral. Fighting a 'limited war" and thus risking loss is what would have been the immoral choice."

:dubious:

Domokun

08-07-2005, 01:15 PM

Should've used more laser guided bombs, obviously. :p

robertliguori

08-08-2005, 07:37 AM

While some of you are doing a great job taking apart Diogenes's argument, I think I'll actually address it head-on.

Diogenes, you are taking a moral-absolutist stance. That's bad. We live in an analogue universe, where every action we take has countless consequences, both good and bad, and attempting to judge the base morality of an action without considering the consequences rapidly leaves behind anything approaching morality.

Hell, example. Giving medicine to children is right, yes? Does this apply to the nutjob injecting adrenaline into the hearts of newborns?

Of course not, you say. The specific circumstances of the situation completely negate the fact that the situation is generally morally good.

Now, I am not arguing that the specific circumstances of war negate the morality of killing children. However, will you concede that moral absolutism perhaps is not the best way to argue this?

tnetennba

08-08-2005, 08:00 AM

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 08:28 AM

If the Nazi's had got the bomb first, I wonder if we'd be arguing that although it was horrible, it was necessary to kill all those people because they had a polluted gene pool and doing so probably saved civilization. The winners in war write the histories.

If the Nazi's won the war, I don't think you would be participating in the free exchange of ideas over the internet.

tnetennba

08-08-2005, 08:30 AM

If the Nazi's won the war, I don't think you would be participating in the free exchange of ideas over the internet.

Well, that's probably true. For one thing, Al Gore would never have had a chance to invent the Internet.

E-Sabbath

08-08-2005, 08:43 AM

Well, that's probably true. For one thing, Al Gore would never have had a chance to invent the Internet.

For the purposes of fighting ignorance:
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
You do know who Vince Cerf is, right?
Man, someone says a slander once and you spend the rest of your life fighting it.

tnetennba

08-08-2005, 08:44 AM

For the purposes of fighting ignorance:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
You do know who Vince Cerf is, right?
Man, someone says a slander once and you spend the rest of your life fighting it.

You're not fighting ignorance. You're being wooshed.

John Corrado

08-08-2005, 10:47 AM

Okay, Dio, a few questions for you. This isn't an attempt to attack you; it's me trying to understand your position on this.

What is the moral difference between killing an 18-year-old who was drafted into service, and a 30-year-old who voluntarily works at a factory that makes armaments for the war effort?

E-Sabbath

08-08-2005, 12:12 PM

Sometimes, I get wooshed. It happens. Sorry, that 'lie' is one of my pet bugaboos. I have great respect for the amount of work Al Gore did in re: promoting technology. (And great hatred for what his wife did... PMRC, etc.)

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2005, 12:19 PM

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 12:37 PM

I realize this thread has derailed into a discussion of Dio's ethics, but I'm shocked that this thread has been so one-sided. Very good, honest historians still disagree over whether the bombing was necessary or not. Take a look at the wikipedia entry to give you just a taste of the debate.

IMHO, the interpretation that the US dropped the bombs in order to save more lives is one of the least plausible of competing historical interpretations. Very few historians seriously believe the invasion of Japan would have been so bloody as to result in the deaths of millions (the "million lives" quote was cooked up by the administration to defend the bombing post hoc). I think the more likely interpretation is that we used the bombs in order to prevent a Soviet invasion of Japan and in order to deter the USSR.

As evidence of this thread's bias, this latter explanation, though common in the literature, hasn't even been mentioned yet. :dubious:

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 01:02 PM

As evidence of this thread's bias, this latter explanation, though common in the literature, hasn't even been mentioned yet. :dubious:
Hate to bum you out but look all the way back to post #5 ;)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6444205&postcount=5

Russian Influence was definitely one of the reasons to drop the bomb.
Keep in mind after Iwo Jima they wanted a fast way to end the war.
Keep in mind after you spent that much money on a project, you might want to demonstrate it to the Russians and others.
Keep in mind Truman probably did not understand the radiological damage the bombs would do. Think about the Bikini Isle testing.
We demanded an unconditional surrender, they chose to fight on.
We dropped 1 bomb and Japan had 1 less city, they chose to fight on.
WE dropped second bomb and Japan had 2 less cities, they finally surrendered.

08-08-2005, 01:05 PM

As evidence of this thread's bias, this latter explanation, though common in the literature, hasn't even been mentioned yet.

I disagree this is evidence of the threads bias. We aren't doing a full on debate of the reasons for the US to have dropped atomic weapons on Japan but merely discussing whether or not Limbaugh's 'win-win' was an appropriate comment. I agree with you that the Soviet invasion of Japan was certainly a major factor in the decision whether or not to end the war rapidly. The US certainly did not want a repeat of what was happening in Europe where the Soviets were partitioning Germany into occupation sectors that had every appearence of being perminent. I think that this is another indication of a 'win' for the Japanese by not allowing the Soviets their shot at invasion...though its one of those grim 'wins' that is just the lesser of two evils again.

Very good, honest historians still disagree over whether the bombing was necessary or not. Take a look at the wikipedia entry to give you just a taste of the debate.

I don't think anyone is saying that there is no debate on this subject...in fact a casual search will show you a LOT of debates on this subject in GD. Afaik though the general consensus among historians is that the Japanese militarist would not have allowed an unfavorable peace (let alone the unconditional surrender the US was demanding) that would not have allowed them to remain in power, they were preparing for a last stand with the intent of killing as many allies as they could to force a more favorable peace reguardless of the civilian casualties they would sustain, and even with the dropping of the two atomic weapons the militarist tried to keep the war going. As to the body count issue we'll never know (thank the gods)...but as I said the US military had ordered something like 500,000 purple hearts (appearently we are still using them today in fact, despite Korea and Vietnam), and the general range I've seen for Japanese casualties is something like 700,000-5 million...extrapolated from the (aprox and from memory) 200,000 casualties they took on Okinawa. I think the 5 million is WAY high, but I don't see the 700,000-1 million mark being that far from possibility. This seems a reasonable extrapolation to me as the population density of the main islands is higher, and the Japanese would fight all the harder for their main islands than even for Okinawa, and the fact that the Japanese had prepared the main beach defenses more elaborately, had husbanded planes, ships etc for suicide attacks, and had prepared the civilian population to resist at all costs.

To get back to the threads 'bias' for a moment: Note that BobLibDem has made many of the standard arguements for the 'US didn't need to drop the bomb' side and no one really has taken up the gauntlet. There are counter arguements too all the points he laid out that have been debated in other threads on this subject...but this isn't really a full blown debate about that. Least I'm not looking at a pit thread in that way.

-XT

tim314

08-08-2005, 02:46 PM

I at least partially agree with Diogenes. I don't think it's morally right to kill civilians to win a war. But then, I don't think it's morally right to kill soldiers to win a war either. Certainly, you can't win a war without killing, and if winning the war is the only outcome we're willing to tolerate, then in that sense it's necessary. But there's a difference between "necessary to achieve a tolerable outcome" and "morally right" (at least to me).

And yes, despite being a self-professed pacifist, it's possible I would kill someone to stop them from killing my family. I (thankfully) haven't ever been in that position, so it's impossible to say for sure. But even if I did, that doesn't mean I think it's morally right. I certainly don't believe I'd say afterwards that I did the right thing. I'd just say I couldn't bear to let my family die, right and wrong be damned.

I'm also not saying the consequences of dropping the A-bombs, etc., weren't preferable to the consequences of not dropping them (although without being able to see what would have unfolded otherwise, I think it's hard to say for sure.) But I don't think you can judge right and wrong based solely on the consequences of your actions.

I'd greatly prefer it if people said we committed horrible atrocities to win WWII, because we genuinely believed the alternative to be even more horrible. Because anything that involves killing thousands and thousands of people is a horrible atrocity. Let's not sugarcoat it by saying it was "the right thing to do", or that it was "win-win." It was horrible but we felt it was necessary. Let's leave it at that.

tim314

08-08-2005, 02:58 PM

Please note with regard to the previous post that "atrocity" can mean an appalling act, not just an act of great evil. I'm not accusing those who dropped the atomic bombs, or those who ordered it, of being evil. I think they did what they felt was necessary. I just take issue with such actions being called good, moral, right or just.

On an unrelated note, I think that calling someone a moron or an asshole because he reaches a different conclusion on a complex moral issue, or subscribes to a line of reasoning you consider flawed . . . well, I think it's despicable. And I'm referring to the reaction of some of you to Diogenes' comments, but who knows, in a minute you may be saying the same things about me.

MMI

08-08-2005, 03:23 PM

I don't think that Hiroshima can be considered a "win-win" solution for the Japanese. There was no "win-win" solutions for the Japanese after 1943 or so. And I do think that the dropping of the atomic bombs was just about the quickest and least deadly (for everyone) means of ending the war. Though that's a discussion for another thread. (I wonder why wee've never debated that one before)

The Japanese government at the time was delusional. That is why the best outcome (from the point of view of the Japanese public's well being) - surrender on the allies terms - was never considered until after the figleaf of two, two atomic bombs gave them an ass-covering excuse to throw in the towel. Fire bombing, devastating loss after devastating loss, ridiculous attrition strategy all did nothing to lead them towards a realistic consideration of their options. It wasn't until June 1944 that the privy council even suggested what might be necessary to bring an early end to the war.

The peace feelers being put out were by unauthorized personnel and had terms that the allies (or rather the Americans) wouldn't to agree to anyways.

There were no good options for Japan barring surrender, immediately, on whatever terms could be had. There were no win-win solutions. No win-lose options. Just a metric shitload of unpalatable choices. The most rational/only reality-based choice being rejected on political grounds, they were stuck with whatever coup de grace the US chose.

Plus, just on principle one shouldn't be flippant about such things.

African-Americans may be better off than the average Congolese or Nigerien. That doesn't make slavery a win-win.

Yeticus Rex

08-08-2005, 03:55 PM

Hate to bum you out but look all the way back to post #5 ;)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6444205&postcount=5

Russian Influence was definitely one of the reasons to drop the bomb.
Keep in mind after Iwo Jima they wanted a fast way to end the war.
Keep in mind after you spent that much money on a project, you might want to demonstrate it to the Russians and others.
Keep in mind Truman probably did not understand the radiological damage the bombs would do. Think about the Bikini Isle testing.
We demanded an unconditional surrender, they chose to fight on.
We dropped 1 bomb and Japan had 1 less city, they chose to fight on.
WE dropped second bomb and Japan had 2 less cities, they finally surrendered.
The only thing I "what if" about is if we would have taken the time to get some of the Japanese dignitaries (under a truce) to a deserted Pacific island and display the capability of the atomic bomb and then give them 72 hours to unconditionally surrender. I wonder if that would have been "more civil" before we actually started bombing. Granted, that would have cut our two choices of cities down to one city and possibly hinder our chances at making the Japanese surrender, but I do wonder if that was even considered by our leaders as a possible choice to end the war.......

kunilou

08-08-2005, 04:30 PM

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 04:52 PM

I disagree this is evidence of the threads bias. We aren't doing a full on debate of the reasons for the US to have dropped atomic weapons on Japan but merely discussing whether or not Limbaugh's 'win-win' was an appropriate comment. I agree with you that the Soviet invasion of Japan was certainly a major factor in the decision whether or not to end the war rapidly. The US certainly did not want a repeat of what was happening in Europe where the Soviets were partitioning Germany into occupation sectors that had every appearence of being perminent. I think that this is another indication of a 'win' for the Japanese by not allowing the Soviets their shot at invasion...though its one of those grim 'wins' that is just the lesser of two evils again.

Surely the debate over whether this was a "win-win" situation hinges on whether killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was the only option to prevent the deaths of more innocent civilians. At that point, its entirely relevant to argue about whether an invasion would have happened, whether the Japanese would have surrendered after more time to consider the first bomb, etc. If we dropped the bomb in order to prevent Soviet hegemony, that doesn't strike me as a valid reason to incinerate thousands of innocent people. YMMV.

I don't think anyone is saying that there is no debate on this subject...in fact a casual search will show you a LOT of debates on this subject in GD. Afaik though the general consensus among historians is that the Japanese militarist would not have allowed an unfavorable peace (let alone the unconditional surrender the US was demanding) that would not have allowed them to remain in power, they were preparing for a last stand with the intent of killing as many allies as they could to force a more favorable peace reguardless of the civilian casualties they would sustain, and even with the dropping of the two atomic weapons the militarist tried to keep the war going. As to the body count issue we'll never know (thank the gods)...but as I said the US military had ordered something like 500,000 purple hearts (appearently we are still using them today in fact, despite Korea and Vietnam), and the general range I've seen for Japanese casualties is something like 700,000-5 million...extrapolated from the (aprox and from memory) 200,000 casualties they took on Okinawa. I think the 5 million is WAY high, but I don't see the 700,000-1 million mark being that far from possibility. This seems a reasonable extrapolation to me as the population density of the main islands is higher, and the Japanese would fight all the harder for their main islands than even for Okinawa, and the fact that the Japanese had prepared the main beach defenses more elaborately, had husbanded planes, ships etc for suicide attacks, and had prepared the civilian population to resist at all costs.

Well, the cites quoted on Wikipedia disagree with those numbers. In 1945, military planners expected the invasion to kill 20,000 - 100,000 US soldiers. But then, I wouldn't give much credence to military planners myself. I think the better argument here is that an invasion would have killed more willing participants and fewer innocent civilians.

To get back to the threads 'bias' for a moment: Note that BobLibDem has made many of the standard arguements for the 'US didn't need to drop the bomb' side and no one really has taken up the gauntlet. There are counter arguements too all the points he laid out that have been debated in other threads on this subject...but this isn't really a full blown debate about that. Least I'm not looking at a pit thread in that way.

Like I said above, I think the scope of the thread has to include whether or not dropping the bombs was the best possible alternative. If it wasn't, then the opportunity cost alone seems to negate the "win-win" rhetoric. But I definitely see where you're coming from. Mostly I didn't want any lurkers to think that the jingoistic history being offered was the only interpretation.

kunilou

08-08-2005, 05:36 PM

I think the better argument here is that an invasion would have killed more willing participants and fewer innocent civilians.

In a war in which the vast majority of troops in all the armies were conscripts, I find the phrase "willing participants" to be completely inappropriate.

08-08-2005, 06:49 PM

Surely the debate over whether this was a "win-win" situation hinges on whether killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was the only option to prevent the deaths of more innocent civilians. At that point, its entirely relevant to argue about whether an invasion would have happened, whether the Japanese would have surrendered after more time to consider the first bomb, etc. If we dropped the bomb in order to prevent Soviet hegemony, that doesn't strike me as a valid reason to incinerate thousands of innocent people. YMMV.

Well, first off, this isn't really a debate...its a pit thread. If a debate is warrented (and maybe its time to have this one again) then it should be in GD. Just MHO here but I doubt anyone is going to strain themselves overly with cites and research in a pit thread.

As to your point about the Soviets, I suppose one can gage 'win/win' on whether or not you think Japan and the Japanese would have been better under the Soviet boot for several decades a la East Germany, and whether said occupation would have been preferable to losing two major cities. And of course this doesn't even take into account just how brutal a Soviet invasion would have been...check out some time exactly what invading Germany cost both the Soviets and the Germans both in military and civilian terms, especially the final assault on Berlin...then multiply that several times as Japan would have been a much tougher nut to crack.

Well, the cites quoted on Wikipedia disagree with those numbers. In 1945, military planners expected the invasion to kill 20,000 - 100,000 US soldiers. But then, I wouldn't give much credence to military planners myself. I think the better argument here is that an invasion would have killed more willing participants and fewer innocent civilians.

The 20,000-100,000 figures are extremely low, even if we are only counting US figures...though you are only talking killed there not total casualties so maybe the high end there is close. And I notice you aren't giving the expected Japanese killed figure. That number should be fairly easy to extrapolate by simply looking at the numbers killed at such places as Okinawa and Saipan...unless you figure the Japanese would have fought less hard for their home islands than they did for those places? IIRC the Japanese lost something like 110,000 soldiers killed and about that same number of civilians killed on Okinawa. The US forces killed were something like 12,000 killed, another 40,000 wounded. And that was for a relatively small island without the expected defenses that the Japanese had planned on Kyushu (i.e. elaborate beach defenses, sighted artillary, thousands of suicide planes, boats, even subs, etc).

Like I said above, I think the scope of the thread has to include whether or not dropping the bombs was the best possible alternative. If it wasn't, then the opportunity cost alone seems to negate the "win-win" rhetoric. But I definitely see where you're coming from. Mostly I didn't want any lurkers to think that the jingoistic history being offered was the only interpretation.

If you want a debate on this, and you are truely interested in debating it, then I'd say start a GD thread on it...or simply do a search on past threads. In the Pit you aren't going to get much of a factual debate IMHO, more just folks skimming information in or making bald assertions (like my figures above from memory of the casualties of Japanese and US forces on Okinawa and Saipan). As to 'jingoistic history', thats a ridiculous claim since afaik the consensus among serious historians is that the dropping of the bombs definitely brought the war to a more rapid conclusion and saved some number of lives. Sure, there is decent on that point, even decent from serious historians, but overall I think I'm safe in saying that there is a general consensus that the Japanese weren't in fact ready to surrender (certainly those who actually wielded the power in Japan were not ready to call it a day), and that invasion of the home islands would have cost more Japanese lives (and certainly allied since we lost none in dropping the bombs) than were lost by dropping the bombs. YMMV but I think you are way off calling that view 'jingoistic history'.

-XT

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 09:42 PM

In a war in which the vast majority of troops in all the armies were conscripts, I find the phrase "willing participants" to be completely inappropriate.

Many Japanese soldiers were willing participants in battle. Many of the innocent civilians that died were not. If you're interested in this sort of thing, you'd find the Japanese anti-war movement a very interesting object of study.

But I take your point. In "total war," the distinction between civilians and soldiers is blurred. I just don't think that means there is no longer a distinction.

Well, first off, this isn't really a debate...its a pit thread. If a debate is warrented (and maybe its time to have this one again) then it should be in GD. Just MHO here but I doubt anyone is going to strain themselves overly with cites and research in a pit thread.

Fair enough. I'll defer to your interpretation of the parameters of the Pit. It just looked to me like there was something of a debate occurring in this thread, and that one solid historical interpretation was being mostly ignored in favor of a considerably more nationalist one.

As to 'jingoistic history', thats a ridiculous claim since afaik the consensus among serious historians is that the dropping of the bombs definitely brought the war to a more rapid conclusion and saved some number of lives. Sure, there is decent on that point, even decent from serious historians, but overall I think I'm safe in saying that there is a general consensus that the Japanese weren't in fact ready to surrender (certainly those who actually wielded the power in Japan were not ready to call it a day), and that invasion of the home islands would have cost more Japanese lives (and certainly allied since we lost none in dropping the bombs) than were lost by dropping the bombs. YMMV but I think you are way off calling that view 'jingoistic history'.

That dropping the bombs brought the war to a more rapid conclusion is not in doubt (by me, at least). That it saved lives is in doubt. My undergraduate degree is in this field, and I can confidently say that it is not the consensus among serious historians that dropping the bombs was the best policy for all parties concerned. At best, there is no consensus -- but to the extent that there is, it is on the side of the US choosing the atomic option more for geo-strategic reasons than because of a desire to save Japanese and American lives.
Calling your position jingoistic may be over-the-top (hey, it's the Pit!); but it is certainly the conservative nationalist position. I acknowledge that it's a complicated debate, with good arguments on both sides, but to call the intentional killing of thousands of innocent civilians a "win-win" situation strikes me as entirely inappropriate and very one-sided.

Frank

08-08-2005, 09:57 PM

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 10:17 PM

Japan has its own jingoistic version of WWII. As I stated earlier, "win-win" sounds flippant to me. The thought behind "win-win" is entirely appropriate, though admittedly debatable.

I have heard, and thus can't cite that Japan was teaching that US forced them into war by cutting them off from Natural Resources.

Has anyone else heard this.

DrDeth

08-08-2005, 10:40 PM

I can see the scenario

Japanese dignitaries
The Americans have a bomb that just turned an island into an ash pit. They say they'll use it on us if we don't surrender.

Japanese militarist 1
They've demanded unconditional surrender. That will leave us with nothing.

Japanese militarist 2 They're bluffing because they don't want to invade us.

Japanese militarist 3 The reason they demonstrated it is because they only have one bomb. They want to scare us, but they have nothing to follow it with.

Close- but more like: Japanese militarist 1, 2 & 3 "You are being a defeatist! Long live the Emperor!" Bang, bang bang.....

They assasinated those who proposed peace.

jrfranchi Hardly. The Japanese had already invaded China. True, in retaliation, the USA had stopped exporting "war materials" to Japan, but they could have bought them elsewhere or do with less... which if they had stopped their Imperialist aggression, they could have done easily. Of course, if they had stopped their Imperialist warmongering, the USA would start exporting to them again. This is one of the excuses the Japanese give, but no one really believes it, except USA haters and Imperialist Japan apologists.

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 10:41 PM

I have heard, and thus can't cite that Japan was teaching that US forced them into war by cutting them off from Natural Resources.

Has anyone else heard this.

This is in Japanese textbooks.

It is also in US textbooks, because it's true.

The US was blocking Japan from getting scrap metal and oil (resources which constituted her main interest in Indochina). Japan offered to cease any military action against US interests if the US ended the embargo and gave Japan 1 million gallons of fuel. The US declined and Japan attacked.

I assume it goes without saying that this was ethical and wise foreign policy on the US part. But it is fundamentally true that the US forced Japan into war by cutting them off from natural resources.

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 10:46 PM

That should have read, "forced them into war with the United States." Japan was, of course, already at war in a number of other places (and, actually, indirectly at war with us since we were supporting Ho Chi Minh.)

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 10:48 PM

jrfranchi Hardly. The Japanese had already invaded China. True, in retaliation, the USA had stopped exporting "war materials" to Japan, but they could have bought them elsewhere or do with less... which if they had stopped their Imperialist aggression, they could have done easily. Of course, if they had stopped their Imperialist warmongering, the USA would start exporting to them again. This is one of the excuses the Japanese give, but no one really believes it, except USA haters and Imperialist Japan apologists.

I was saying I heard Japan was teaching this not that I believed this excrement.
I am pro dropping bombs and was just wondering if anyone else heard they were teaching their kids this BS.
I probably picked it up out of a Clancy book, if so it is suspect.

BTW everyone was doing things to China, well not really, but Brits had already did a number on them, just not the stupidy brutish stuff the Japanese did.

Frank

08-08-2005, 10:52 PM

(and, actually, indirectly at war with us since we were supporting Ho Chi Minh.)
That's amusing. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 10:58 PM

This is in Japanese textbooks.

It is also in US textbooks, because it's true.

The US was blocking Japan from getting scrap metal and oil (resources which constituted her main interest in Indochina). Japan offered to cease any military action against US interests if the US ended the embargo and gave Japan 1 million gallons of fuel. The US declined and Japan attacked.

I assume it goes without saying that this was ethical and wise foreign policy on the US part. But it is fundamentally true that the US forced Japan into war by cutting them off from natural resources.

I can't believe how wrongheaded your statement is.
To say we forced Japan to attack us? You even admit they where already at war.
Perhaps they had some other option? You no like not warring on other nations.
How can you keep slamming US in the one war we were clearly on the right side?
We fought 2 crazed aggressor nations!!!

DrDeth

08-08-2005, 11:02 PM

It is also in US textbooks, because it's true.

The US was blocking Japan from getting scrap metal and oil (resources which constituted her main interest in Indochina). Japan offered to cease any military action against US interests if the US ended the embargo and gave Japan 1 million gallons of fuel. The US declined and Japan attacked.

I assume it goes without saying that this was ethical and wise foreign policy on the US part. But it is fundamentally true that the US forced Japan into war by cutting them off from natural resources.

It's not true. The USA was NOT blocking Japan from getting metal or oil- both were freely available in the world market- what the USA did was say we woudln't sell Japan any. They were free to buy it from any other nation.

And- note those two clauses "against US interests"- which didn't include Manchuria. And "gave Japan 1 million gallons of fuel". Why on earth our failure to buy Japan off with a huge bribe is "US forcing Japan into war" I don't know. :dubious: It's a bit like the kidnapper saying "well, you didn't pay the ransom, so you have forced me into killing my hostage"! :rolleyes:

The Japanese did not need US resources in order to survive. They wanted US resources in order to continue a policy of Imperialism in China and elsewhere.

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 11:07 PM

That's amusing. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

No kidding. Is there an insurgent leader that we've fought that the CIA didn't train? To be fair, Ho seemed like a nice enough guy -- big fan of Thomas Jefferson.

I can't believe how wrongheaded your statement is.
To say we forced Japan to attack us? You even admit they where already at war.
Perhaps they had some other option? You no like not warring on other nations.
How can you keep slamming US in the one war we were clearly on the right side?
We fought 2 crazed aggressor nations!!!

Was this message created by some sort of right-wing nutjob script?

I can see we'll need to start at a very basic level with you. So, for starters, how about pointing to where I slammed the US?

Was it this?

I assume it goes without saying that this was ethical and wise foreign policy on the US part.

Seriously, am I being whoosed? Are you actually a liberal and you're just parodying some of the more mindless righty posters?

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 11:09 PM

You know, I understand and respect Dio's view. He is a very definate pacifist.

I don't understand where Zhao Daoli is coming from, could you perhaps clarify your positions. I am hoping I am misunderstanding you.

I think you are saying Japan was forced into war on US by US.

Funny, I was trying to find out if Japan was really teaching this crap. I am suspecting it is not just Japan.

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 11:18 PM

It's not true. The USA was NOT blocking Japan from getting metal or oil- both were freely available in the world market- what the USA did was say we woudln't sell Japan any. They were free to buy it from any other nation.

And- note those two clauses "against US interests"- which didn't include Manchuria. And "gave Japan 1 million gallons of fuel". Why on earth our failure to buy Japan off with a huge bribe is "US forcing Japan into war" I don't know. :dubious: It's a bit like the kidnapper saying "well, you didn't pay the ransom, so you have forced me into killing my hostage"! :rolleyes:

The Japanese did not need US resources in order to survive. They wanted US resources in order to continue a policy of Imperialism in China and elsewhere.

Since this is the Pit, and apparently we're not supposed to debate for real here, I'll just say this: you're wrong. I mean, it's just glaringly obvious that you're not familiar with the history here. A good place to start would be any history textbook, perhaps even wikipedia.

And as far as the last paragraph goes, I didn't say they needed US resources to survive. In fact, your post is the first time that phrase has appeared. It was implicit in my post that Japan wanted the resources (which I indicated were mostly in Indochina) in order to continue imperialist actions, which the US was right to oppose. But it is simultaneously true that Japan would likely not have gone to war with us if we hadn't blocked their access to resources.

You know, I understand and respect Dio's view. He is a very definate pacifist.

I don't understand where Zhao Daoli is coming from, could you perhaps clarify your positions. I am hoping I am misunderstanding you.

I think you are saying Japan was forced into war on US by US.

Funny, I was trying to find out if Japan was really teaching this crap. I am suspecting it is not just Japan.

I think perhaps you're failing to understand me because we using different definitions of the word "force." When I say "force," I mean, we made it so that Japan's options were to give up her power grab and forego massive industrialization or go to war with the US. Incidentally, this is the way many Japanese textbooks portray it.

I am not claiming, and neither are the Japanese, that Japan was a peaceful nation until the evil US came along and forced them into war with us. That much should have been obvious when I claimed explicitly in my first post that this was a wise and ethical policy on the part of the US.

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 11:24 PM

I think perhaps you're failing to understand me because we using different definitions of the word "force." When I say "force," I mean, we made it so that Japan's options were to give up her power grab and forego massive industrialization or go to war with the US. Incidentally, this is the way many Japanese textbooks portray it.

I am not claiming, and neither are the Japanese, that Japan was a peaceful nation until the evil US came along and forced them into war with us. That much should have been obvious when I claimed explicitly in my first post that this was a wise and ethical policy on the part of the US.

Ok, fair. I should have read the disclaimer as not condoning the teachings, but I still don’t like the forced phrase.
I could say Japan’s failure to surrender forced US to drop the bombs but that would be false as we had other possible means to end the war. I don’t feel your disclaimer alone explains away the use of the phrase “forced”.

08-08-2005, 11:27 PM

Fair enough. I'll defer to your interpretation of the parameters of the Pit. It just looked to me like there was something of a debate occurring in this thread, and that one solid historical interpretation was being mostly ignored in favor of a considerably more nationalist one.

Well, YMMV on this but IMHO you just don't get a good debate in here. Folks don't spend the time to really cite their claims as much and talk more off the tops of their heads (or out various other orifices). Generally they try to either be witty or antagonistic/insulting (since its the Pit and all :)) or to simply score points. The word 'fuck' is practically mandatory. Thats just my impression though I don't spend as much time in here as in GD so maybe I'm wrong.

That dropping the bombs brought the war to a more rapid conclusion is not in doubt (by me, at least). That it saved lives is in doubt. My undergraduate degree is in this field, and I can confidently say that it is not the consensus among serious historians that dropping the bombs was the best policy for all parties concerned. At best, there is no consensus -- but to the extent that there is, it is on the side of the US choosing the atomic option more for geo-strategic reasons than because of a desire to save Japanese and American lives.

Well, I don't really see how the bald statement that 'lives were saved' could be in doubt from serious historians to be honest...depending on what assumptions we are making. I mean, its pretty much an established fact that there were something like 150,000 (from memory again...not bothering to look it up, that should be in the ball park) captured allied service men. They were dieing at something like 1000 a day...and the Japanese had said that if the home islands were invaded they were planning on killing them immediately. Perhaps 'serious historians' don't take that threat seriously...I think the prisoners did.

Then there was the invasion itself. Assuming for a moment that an actual invasion would take place (seems likely to me, but my degree is in engineering :)), I think just the Japanese dead coupled with the allied prisoners dead would be more than both bombings...not including the allied invasion forces dead (and if the Soviets had joined the game then all bets are off what the casualties would be...you being a serious historian you are probably better aware than I am what casualties they suffered just taking Berlin). So, IF there was an invasion then I'd say its pretty clear that 'lives were saved' is at least a valid arguement.

If your point is there would be no invasion then I suppose I could see how you could claim that the 'lives were saved' thing wouldn't hold water...but then we get into the debate as to how valid a claim that is. The Japanese were certainly taking the invasion seriously...if you've been to Japan the fortifications are still there. After the surrender the allies found caves full of artillary, mines, planes, coves full of small suicide boats, even two man suicide subs...all in preparation for the invasion. The allies were also taking it pretty seriously...the US was moving its troops from Europe, staging logistics supplies, building air strips, concentrating fleets...and the Soviets were moving their own forces into position to get a piece of the pie. All those folks thought there was going to be the mother of all battles for Japan...were they all wrong and the Japanese poised to either collapse or surrender? Collapse seems unlikely to me, at least military collapse or revolution. That leaves how serious (and credible) were their surrender plans...and how seriously were they taken by the allies?

From what I've read in the past, while its true that some elements of the Japanese government were seeking a back channel conduit to begin talking about peace, the majority of the pro-military factions (who were in control) were adamently opposed...certainly they were adamently opposed to unconditional surrender which was what was being demanded. Again from memory the terms being floated by even the anti-military factions concerning peace were completely unacceptable to the US and the allies...so to me its kind of a moot point to even bring it up, unless I'm grossly mistaken on this. Certainly I don't think the allies were taking the various noises about Japanese surrender too seriously...and based on their preparations I don't think the key leaders in Japan were taking them too seriously either.

-XT

What Exit?

08-08-2005, 11:29 PM

Was this message created by some sort of right-wing nutjob script?

BTW I also resent this, I call your statement wrongheaded and you acuse me of being A) a nutjob and B) a script {not even 100% sure of what you're accusing me of but it don't sound very good} ;)

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 11:36 PM

Ok, fair. I should have read the disclaimer as not condoning the teachings, but I still don’t like the forced phrase.
I could say Japan’s failure to surrender forced US to drop the bombs but that would be false as we had other possible means to end the war. I don’t feel your disclaimer alone explains away the use of the phrase “forced”.

No, I do endorse teaching this as part of a history curriculum. It is true that the US oil embargo was seriously hurting Japan. It cut off something like 90% of Japanese oil; this would not only put a stop to the Japanese war machine, but also most of the nation. The Japanese could either decide to be crippled by the embargo, or go to war with the US. It is entirely appropriate to teach students that this US decision is what led to the US-Japan conflict. It would be inappropriate to characterize it as a bad decision, but that isn't how its characterized.

I suspect that you're somehow viewing this as criticism of the US. I'm not sure how you're getting that.

BTW I also resent this, I call your statement wrongheaded and you acuse me of being A) a nutjob and B) a script {not even 100% sure of what you're accusing me of but it don't sound very good}

I accused you of being a nutjob because you decided to interpret my post as some sort of America bashing when it was literally the exact opposite. That plus the poorly spelled colored text declaring that "we fought two crazed aggressor nations." ;) Also, it's the Pit. I'm trying to fit in.

I'll happily retract my insults if that's not too un-Pit-like of me.

Frank

08-08-2005, 11:39 PM

BTW I also resent this, I call your statement wrongheaded and you acuse me of being A) a nutjob and B) a script {not even 100% sure of what you're accusing me of but it don't sound very good} ;)
I think tomorrow when you look at your post with fresh eyes you'll agree that it was pretty agressive. I agree with you that "forced" is a strong word, but not that is was strong enough to garner that reaction. We did expect a war with Japan, not in the way or time that it happened, but we knew it was likely to happen. So did Japan. Our actions caused them to decide it was the right time. Forced? Probably not. Bound to happen eventually with the timing decided by our actions? Probably so.

Richard Parker

08-08-2005, 11:46 PM

Well, I don't really see how the bald statement that 'lives were saved' could be in doubt from serious historians to be honest...depending on what assumptions we are making. I mean, its pretty much an established fact that there were something like 150,000 (from memory again...not bothering to look it up, that should be in the ball park) captured allied service men. They were dieing at something like 1000 a day...and the Japanese had said that if the home islands were invaded they were planning on killing them immediately. Perhaps 'serious historians' don't take that threat seriously...I think the prisoners did.

Then there was the invasion itself. Assuming for a moment that an actual invasion would take place (seems likely to me, but my degree is in engineering :)), I think just the Japanese dead coupled with the allied prisoners dead would be more than both bombings...not including the allied invasion forces dead (and if the Soviets had joined the game then all bets are off what the casualties would be...you being a serious historian you are probably better aware than I am what casualties they suffered just taking Berlin). So, IF there was an invasion then I'd say its pretty clear that 'lives were saved' is at least a valid arguement.

If your point is there would be no invasion then I suppose I could see how you could claim that the 'lives were saved' thing wouldn't hold water...but then we get into the debate as to how valid a claim that is. The Japanese were certainly taking the invasion seriously...if you've been to Japan the fortifications are still there. After the surrender the allies found caves full of artillary, mines, planes, coves full of small suicide boats, even two man suicide subs...all in preparation for the invasion. The allies were also taking it pretty seriously...the US was moving its troops from Europe, staging logistics supplies, building air strips, concentrating fleets...and the Soviets were moving their own forces into position to get a piece of the pie. All those folks thought there was going to be the mother of all battles for Japan...were they all wrong and the Japanese poised to either collapse or surrender? Collapse seems unlikely to me, at least military collapse or revolution. That leaves how serious (and credible) were their surrender plans...and how seriously were they taken by the allies?

From what I've read in the past, while its true that some elements of the Japanese government were seeking a back channel conduit to begin talking about peace, the majority of the pro-military factions (who were in control) were adamently opposed...certainly they were adamently opposed to unconditional surrender which was what was being demanded. Again from memory the terms being floated by even the anti-military factions concerning peace were completely unacceptable to the US and the allies...so to me its kind of a moot point to even bring it up, unless I'm grossly mistaken on this. Certainly I don't think the allies were taking the various noises about Japanese surrender too seriously...and based on their preparations I don't think the key leaders in Japan were taking them too seriously either.

Heh, well, my degree is most certainly not in military operations, so I can only defer to the experts at the time. Virtually all of the senior officers in the Pacific theater, including MacArthur, believed there was no military justification for the bombings. Even the notoriously trigger-happy Curtis LeMay didn't think we needed to drop the bombs.

Is it possible that if we hadn't dropped the bombs we would have had to invade Japan at the cost of many more lives? Yes, I think its possible. But I think its far from being clear-cut. So far that the best we can say is that the historical record isn't clear either way.

DrDeth

08-08-2005, 11:52 PM

It is true that the US oil embargo was seriously hurting Japan. It cut off something like 90% of Japanese oil; this would not only put a stop to the Japanese war machine, but also most of the nation. The Japanese could either decide to be crippled by the embargo, or go to war with the US. It is entirely appropriate to teach students that this US decision is what led to the US-Japan conflict.
Again, not ture. The Japanese could have bought their oil elsewhere.

But saying "US decision is what led to the US-Japan conflict" is like saying "The decision of GB to not let Germany take Poland without war is what led to the Germany- GB conflict" or "All Germany wanted was the Danzig corridor- not giving that to Hitler is what forced Germany to invade Poland and start WWII". We learned from Hitler and Chamberlain that Appeasement just makes Imperialistic dictators stronger.

Japan could have either stopped it's policy of Imperialism or bought it's oil elsewhere. The fact that we failed to Appease Tojo doesn't mean we 'forced" him to sneak attack Pearl harbor. :rolleyes:

DrDeth

08-09-2005, 12:01 AM

Heh, well, my degree is most certainly not in military operations, so I can only defer to the experts at the time. Virtually all of the senior officers in the Pacific theater, including MacArthur, believed there was no military justification for the bombings. Even the notoriously trigger-happy Curtis LeMay didn't think we needed to drop the bombs.

That's because MacArthur wanted to Invade (many American deaths, and many more Japanese deaths) and LeMay wanted to "bomb and blockade" them into surrender- which would have killed the 150,000 allied POW's and likely 10X more Japanese that using "the Bomb'. We didn't NEED to use the Bomb, true. It was just that the Bomb was the alternative with the lowest number of deaths (including Japanese deaths) of the alternatives then being considered. It was (ironically) the humane alternative. Neither MacArthur or Lemay (or any major American military leader) considered allowing the "Japs" to surrender on terms the Japanese Militarlists would have demanded. Thus saying "Virtually all of the senior officers in the Pacific theater... believed there was no military justification for the bombings." is specious as they all wanted alternatives that would have killed many many more Japanese. Basicly- this is such a specious comment that it's really a lie.

Richard Parker

08-09-2005, 12:15 AM

Again, not ture. The Japanese could have bought their oil elsewhere.

Cite?
That's just fucking wrong.

But saying "US decision is what led to the US-Japan conflict" is like saying "The decision of GB to not let Germany take Poland without war is what led to the Germany- GB conflict" or "All Germany wanted was the Danzig corridor- not giving that to Hitler is what forced Germany to invade Poland and start WWII". We learned from Hitler and Chamberlain that Appeasement just makes Imperialistic dictators stronger.

Well, it's a little different, but yes the situations are more or less analogous? If your point is that the US was right in embargoing Japan, no one is disagreeing. If your point is that we shouldn't teach that the US actions led to Japan attacking us, then you're advocating ignorance.

Japan could have either stopped it's policy of Imperialism or bought it's oil elsewhere. The fact that we failed to Appease Tojo doesn't mean we 'forced" him to sneak attack Pearl harbor. :rolleyes:

You're deliberately interpreting "force" in a nonsensical way. No, we didn't put a gun to Tojo's head and force him to attack us. But we did make it Japan's only strategic option. I'm using the word "force," (and presumably the textbooks are using some Japanese word) to mean that the US made the attack Japan's only option short of deciding to capitulate and await the return of normal relations. It is not an unreasonable use of the word; its used that way when talking about geo-politics all the time.

Richard Parker

08-09-2005, 12:22 AM

That's because MacArthur wanted to Invade (many American deaths, and many more Japanese deaths) and LeMay wanted to "bomb and blockade" them into surrender- which would have killed the 150,000 allied POW's and likely 10X more Japanese that using "the Bomb'. We didn't NEED to use the Bomb, true. It was just that the Bomb was the alternative with the lowest number of deaths (including Japanese deaths) of the alternatives then being considered. It was (ironically) the humane alternative. Neither MacArthur or Lemay (or any major American military leader) considered allowing the "Japs" to surrender on terms the Japanese Militarlists would have demanded. Thus saying "Virtually all of the senior officers in the Pacific theater... believed there was no military justification for the bombings." is specious as they all wanted alternatives that would have killed many many more Japanese. Basicly- this is such a specious comment that it's really a lie.

Well, as long as we're totally pulling things out of our asses, Truman bombed the Japanese because he long believed that gold was hidden under Nagasaki. Hoping to uncover the gold and swoop in, Truman intended to build for himself a massive monument in the shape of a unicorn. Unicorns, as we all know, are the universal symbol for re-election.

Seriously, would you care to back any of that up with a shred of evidence?

Here, I'll give you an example of what evidence looks like:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

DrDeth

08-09-2005, 07:02 AM

Cite?
That's just fucking wrong.

Well, it's a little different, but yes the situations are more or less analogous? If your point is that the US was right in embargoing Japan, no one is disagreeing. If your point is that we shouldn't teach that the US actions led to Japan attacking us, then you're advocating ignorance.

You're deliberately interpreting "force" in a nonsensical way. No, we didn't put a gun to Tojo's head and force him to attack us. But we did make it Japan's only strategic option. I'm using the word "force," (and presumably the textbooks are using some Japanese word) to mean that the US made the attack Japan's only option short of deciding to capitulate and await the return of normal relations. .

The USA wasn't the only Oil producing nation in 1941 (Mexico, Venezula, the Dutch East Indies, Russia, the Middle east, etc etc etc), and thus those who make the extraordinary claim have to support it. You have to give ME a cite saying that the USA was the only Oil producing nation in 1941. :dubious:

I am glad yiou agree the situations are more or less analogous. Thus, only some sort of apologist or madman would insist WWII was Churchill's fault for the failure to continue the policy of appeasement- or the USA'a fault for not bowing for similar appeasement demands from Tojo.

No, it wasn't Japans "only strategic option" They did NOT have to continue a plan of military agression and Imperialism, and they could have bought oil elsewhere. Thus, they had two other options.

DrDeth

08-09-2005, 07:18 AM

Well, as long as we're totally pulling things out of our asses, Truman bombed the Japanese because he long believed that gold was hidden under Nagasaki. Hoping to uncover the gold and swoop in, Truman intended to build for himself a massive monument in the shape of a unicorn. Unicorns, as we all know, are the universal symbol for re-election.

Seriously, would you care to back any of that up with a shred of evidence?

Here, I'll give you an example of what evidence looks like:

Here's a Bio of Gen Lemay.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/lemay.html
Note that it mentions his support of " Always a tactical innovator, LeMay took the risky and controversial step of abandoning the longheld American doctrine of highaltitude, daylight, precision bombing, and instead stripped his B29s of guns, loaded them with incendiaries, and sent them against Japanese cities at night and at low level. The new strategy was remarkably successful; Japan was devastated, and the dropping of the atomic bombs in August 1945 brought the Pacific war to an end without an invasion of the Japanese home islands and the hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have entailed."

Again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
"LeMay's initial assesment of the operations of his new command determined that his bombers were dropping their bombs near their targets only five percent of the time, and that his losses of aircraft and crews were unsustainably high. LeMay was convinced that continuing his predecessor's high-altitude, precision bombing doctrine would be ineffective, given the weather conditions over Japan. He decided to switch tactics to low-altitude, incendiary attacks on Japanese cities, with precision bombing only when weather permitted.

LeMay commanded B-29 operations against Japan, including the massive incendiary attacks on over sixty Japanese cities, including the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9 -March 10, 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians in one night. Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing and nuclear bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March, 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August, 1945, may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders."

Roosevelt and Truman justified these tactics by referring to an estimate that one million American troops would be killed if Japan had to be invaded. Additionally, the Japanese had decentralized their armament industries into small workshops in civilian districts, which (according to the rationale) made these areas legitimate military targets.

LeMay referred to his nightime incendiary attacks as "fire jobs." The Japanese nicknamed him "brutal LeMay""

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-02.html

" US military opinion was divided on what it would require to induce Japan's surrender and finally bring the war to an end. Gen. George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commanding US forces in the western Pacific, believed an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be necessary.

Gen. H. H. Arnold, commander of the Army Air Forces, and Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay (whose XXI Bomber Command in the Marianas was pounding Japan relentlessly) believed that B-29 conventional bombing could do the job. Adm. William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff, and Adm. Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations, were not fully in accord with Marshall and MacArthur, either."

Now, see those are cites and quotes. Your quote is without a link.

However, I was able to find it. You really should read the whole thing. What it suggests is that continued firebombing, strategic bombing (including raillines bombing, which woudl have led to mass starvation) and blockade- could have forced the Japanese to surrender. Sure- killing another 8 million or so Japanese civilians. " Certain of the United States commanders and the representatives of the Survey who were called back from their investigations in Germany in early June 1945 for consultation stated their belief that, by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion"

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Richard Parker

08-09-2005, 10:18 AM

Here's a Bio of Gen Lemay.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/lemay.html
Note that it mentions his support of " Always a tactical innovator, LeMay took the risky and controversial step of abandoning the longheld American doctrine of highaltitude, daylight, precision bombing, and instead stripped his B29s of guns, loaded them with incendiaries, and sent them against Japanese cities at night and at low level. The new strategy was remarkably successful; Japan was devastated, and the dropping of the atomic bombs in August 1945 brought the Pacific war to an end without an invasion of the Japanese home islands and the hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have entailed."

Again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
"LeMay's initial assesment of the operations of his new command determined that his bombers were dropping their bombs near their targets only five percent of the time, and that his losses of aircraft and crews were unsustainably high. LeMay was convinced that continuing his predecessor's high-altitude, precision bombing doctrine would be ineffective, given the weather conditions over Japan. He decided to switch tactics to low-altitude, incendiary attacks on Japanese cities, with precision bombing only when weather permitted.

LeMay commanded B-29 operations against Japan, including the massive incendiary attacks on over sixty Japanese cities, including the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9 -March 10, 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians in one night. Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing and nuclear bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March, 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August, 1945, may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders."

Roosevelt and Truman justified these tactics by referring to an estimate that one million American troops would be killed if Japan had to be invaded. Additionally, the Japanese had decentralized their armament industries into small workshops in civilian districts, which (according to the rationale) made these areas legitimate military targets.

LeMay referred to his nightime incendiary attacks as "fire jobs." The Japanese nicknamed him "brutal LeMay""

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-02.html

" US military opinion was divided on what it would require to induce Japan's surrender and finally bring the war to an end. Gen. George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commanding US forces in the western Pacific, believed an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be necessary.

Gen. H. H. Arnold, commander of the Army Air Forces, and Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay (whose XXI Bomber Command in the Marianas was pounding Japan relentlessly) believed that B-29 conventional bombing could do the job. Adm. William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff, and Adm. Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations, were not fully in accord with Marshall and MacArthur, either."

Now, see those are cites and quotes. Your quote is without a link.

However, I was able to find it. You really should read the whole thing. What it suggests is that continued firebombing, strategic bombing (including raillines bombing, which woudl have led to mass starvation) and blockade- could have forced the Japanese to surrender. Sure- killing another 8 million or so Japanese civilians. " Certain of the United States commanders and the representatives of the Survey who were called back from their investigations in Germany in early June 1945 for consultation stated their belief that, by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion"

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Since you still don't even know what we're arguing about (you believe I'm blaming the US for WWII), and since you don't even know the basic facts of the situation, I'm going to bow out. I'll leave only with the suggestion that when you're asked to provide cites, you provide them for the claims that occur in your paragraph (i.e. MacArthur didn't want to bomb because he wanted to invade), not just tangentially related phrases (i.e. MacArthur thought an invasion would be necessary at some unspecified time in the war).

p.s. Seriously, if you're interested in this stuff (which apparently you are), you should really re-read the basics of the situation. The allied oil embargo was cutting off nearly all of Japanese oil and she had no other options. If you have some proof to the contrary, you could probably get yourself published since it would be such a novel thesis.

Shodan

08-09-2005, 10:23 AM

The only thing I "what if" about is if we would have taken the time to get some of the Japanese dignitaries (under a truce) to a deserted Pacific island and display the capability of the atomic bomb and then give them 72 hours to unconditionally surrender. kunilou addressed this, but I sitll wonder why this would have been more convincing than, say, Hiroshima.

In other words, we needed to demonstrate not only that the Bomb worked, but that we could deliver it to a defended target, that it was as bad as we said, and that we were willing to use it. It's hard to convince someone to surrender if you give the impression of being squeamish.

The message being delivered was:
You aren't going to die heroically for the Emperor. You aren't going to take a dozen enemies with you when you perish. There isn't going to be anything glorious about your end.

One by one by one, your cities will cease to exist. And you won't get a single drop of our blood in return. Not one.

Tokyo is next.

Maitta?

Regards,
Shodan

smiling bandit

08-09-2005, 10:51 AM

by Dio
However, these days we have no problem saying that deliberately targeting civilians is off the table as a strategy and we decry any entity that does target civilians. It seems to me that the world has not become less complex since WWII and that if we can follow that policy now we could have followed it then.

Complexity is not the question. The weapons and situations have changed. Now, we can drop bombs acccurately. We can deploy troops exactly where they need to go. We couldn't do that in WWII. The biggest thing that changed was twe can now hit the eney's infrastructure directly. In WWII, this didn't work very well. Only by attacking resources on a mass scale could we hope to interdict them on even a small scale. And often, the only way to do even that was simply to kill everyone who could work the resources. It wasn't a pretty sight, but people were merely another resource in WWII.

Today, things are a bit different. People are no longer resources to be exploited to produce armaments and soldiers but the battlefield itself.

by Dio
Fuck that. I'm still right. I'd rather kill somebody that's fighting back than incinerate babies any day.

So would I. But I would rather protect my countrymen from death even it did cost the lives of those who go along with evil. It wasn't us who put those chidren in the line of fire. The Japanese chose to risk it.

by Dio
I doubt this civilian stand for the Emperor would have actually panned out anyway. There are usually all sorts of wild ass contingency plans drawn up during wars. That doesn't mean all those civilians were actually going to go along with it.

Japanese civilians certainly were doing similar things in areas the US conquered. And it is a fact that some had begun preperations in the home islands.

Believe it or not, I do understand how you feel, Dio. But don't take the fact that we won as an admission of guilt. They chose to battle us to the death. We chose to win rather than lose. And it wasn't just our good that required it, it was the good of everyone in the Pacific Rim.

by Dio
Because I find the idea completely ludicrous. Most human beings with no combat experience will surrender in a heart beat.

But all evidence in the Pacific campaign shows that the Japanese virtually never surrendered willingly, even complete civilians. Those who were taken were generally taken because they had gone unconscious, and behaved well. And that was apparently because they believed that, having been captured, they had no rights at all.

by Dio
I think the South had the right to secede. Slavery was evil but I think it should have been fought non-violently and that it would have ended in the south eventually anyway.

Actually, I believe it would still be here today, in the US and all over the Americas.

Now, as for BobLibDem, I'm afraid you're just wrong there. The government felt, and I believe it was correct, that anyting less than unconditional surrender would lead into a sequal war. In any case, they had excellent reasons for doing so and believing that the Japanese "surrender" offers were both in bad faith and aimed at buying more time to prepare for a final defense. And I believe they were correct. In any case, the parties offering the "surrender" had neither the authority nor actual power to carry it out.

by [/b]Zhoa Daoli[/b]
But it is fundamentally true that the US forced Japan into war by cutting them off from natural resources.

The US forced Japan into nothing. They could have accepted the lack of and Empire of evil. They decided that building an Empire and ruling over Southeast Asia with an iron fist was worth the cost. Perhaps it was inevitable given the kind of bastards who ruled Japan and the callousness of the average Japanese then. But the diplomacy doesn't change the morality.

Yeticus Rex

08-09-2005, 12:36 PM

Kunilou and Shodan.....points well taken.
You're deliberately interpreting "force" in a nonsensical way. No, we didn't put a gun to Tojo's head and force him to attack us. But we did make it Japan's only strategic option. I'm using the word "force," (and presumably the textbooks are using some Japanese word) to mean that the US made the attack Japan's only option short of deciding to capitulate and await the return of normal relations. It is not an unreasonable use of the word; its used that way when talking about geo-politics all the time.
No different than the U.S. having the only strategic option (being "forced") to use the A-bombs, even though there were bloodier options to choose from, with more American POW's lives at stake.
That's because MacArthur wanted to Invade (many American deaths, and many more Japanese deaths) and LeMay wanted to "bomb and blockade" them into surrender- which would have killed the 150,000 allied POW's and likely 10X more Japanese that using "the Bomb'. We didn't NEED to use the Bomb, true. It was just that the Bomb was the alternative with the lowest number of deaths (including Japanese deaths) of the alternatives then being considered. It was (ironically) the humane alternative. Neither MacArthur or Lemay (or any major American military leader) considered allowing the "Japs" to surrender on terms the Japanese Militarlists would have demanded. Thus saying "Virtually all of the senior officers in the Pacific theater... believed there was no military justification for the bombings." is specious as they all wanted alternatives that would have killed many many more Japanese. Basicly- this is such a specious comment that it's really a lie.
My Father-In-Law (who was a pistol-packing Medical Officer, still living today) was at Saipan and Okinawa, and then oversought a medical unit at Hiroshima in September of 1945 would respectfully disagree with you. He told me that out of those three places, Hiroshima was the worst of the three........and that was after the war was over. After saying that, had we not used the bomb, chances were that my FIL would have been part of the mainland offensives and probably would have stood a very good chance of not being my FIL. I guess I just wanted to reinforce the word "ironically" up a notch, and lessen the emphasis on the word "humane" down another notch.

Again, I point to this Jesuit priest's first hand account (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/hiroshim/siemes.htm) when an A-bomb doesn't kill you instantaneously.

DrDeth

08-09-2005, 07:45 PM

My Father-In-Law (who was a pistol-packing Medical Officer, still living today) was at Saipan and Okinawa, and then oversought a medical unit at Hiroshima in September of 1945 would respectfully disagree with you. He told me that out of those three places, Hiroshima was the worst of the three........and that was after the war was over. After saying that, had we not used the bomb, chances were that my FIL would have been part of the mainland offensives and probably would have stood a very good chance of not being my FIL. I guess I just wanted to reinforce the word "ironically" up a notch, and lessen the emphasis on the word "humane" down another notch.

I bow to his personal experience about how terrible the Hiroshima bomb was. But I have also read about the horrors of the firebombing of Tokyo- and there would have been dozens more attacks like that if Lemay had got his way (no A bomb, no Invasion). Just about every source agrees that terrible as the Atomic bombings were- the other two THEN CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES (Invasion or "Bomb and Blockade") would have killed many many more humans. The Airforce wanted to cut all the rail-lines. Read someday about the certain starvation that would have caused for a large % of the Japanese urban poplation. And remember that just the number to that point in time point to the disparity- about 100K confirmed deasth from the two atomic bombs and more than 700K killed by firebombing and other bombs. That's 7 times more rigth there. Source

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

And of course- either alternative would have continued the horrors of the Japanese "POW camps"- where some 150000 allied prisoners were been tortured and starved. The "Bomb and Blockade" alternative would have certainly doomed them to a slow, suffering death.

As to how the lack of "resources" "forced' the Japanese into attacking us: "The orientation of the Japanese economy toward war began in 1928, and continued with increasing emphasis during the Manchurian and Chinese campaigns. By 1940, total production had arisen by more than 75 percent; heavy industrial production by almost 500 percent; and 17 percent of Japan's total output was being devoted to direct war purposes and expansion of her munition industries, as against 2.6 percent at that time in the United States." In other words, the Japanese needed said 'resources' only to tool up a mighty engine of Imperialism.

Oddly, my ex-father-in-law was part of the Military Government of Okinawa. He couldn't talk about what happened during the Invasion, it was that bad.

I don't doubt that Hiroshima was terrible. The truely awful thing is that either of the two possible alternatives were both far worse.

Yeticus Rex

08-10-2005, 03:21 PM

Oh, I'm not arguing with you that the other options were "less humane" and more deadly, I was just given you anecdotal memories of just one man and what he saw with his own eyes and what generated his own feelings about WW2; and I was just relaying those feelings on this board. He is definitely not the authority on what was considered "horrible" or "humane". I never did get into a "What if..." conversation with him yet about what would have happened if the other generals had their way instead (firebombing, blocade, etc.). I might approach him on that subject someday, but I must be somewhat delicate on the subject and the timing is a concern too. He's turning 83 this Thursday and his memory is still in pretty good shape, but his bodily health has had issues over the last 4 years or so, but he's stable for now.

ambushed

09-27-2005, 05:55 AM

Yeah, I can't really get too steamed up about that. Much as it pains my liberal heart to agree with anything that revolting gasbag says, he's more-or-less accurate. ... We no more should apologize to Japan for the atomic bomb than we should apologize to Germany for the conventional bombing runs we conducted over Berlin.Much as it pains my liberal heart too, I have to agree with Rush on this one. However, our stated national (diplomatic) policy at the time was that we would never bomb targets with a large civilian presence, and we swore to uphold that (but we weren't the only ones to do so: Germany and Russia swore likewise, but obviously didn't uphold it).

To get around that strong moral position in the U.S., we lied our asses off to ourselves and bombed the shit out of civilians anyway. One such famous, fatuous lie was LeMay's bullshit to the effect that all Japanese had drill-presses for making weapons in their home, so they deserved to be bombed. (Oddly, observers sent in to inspect Tokyo could never justify that claim).

As for apologies, the only one I can think of that we have a strong moral foundation to make is for Dresden. It was utterly inexcusable, under any pretense.

ambushed

09-27-2005, 06:27 AM

Prove it. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit Military-industrial targets. So was Dresden.Nonsense. Churchill -- in one of his irrational, drunken rages -- put Dresden on the bombing list personally, knowing full well that it had no few, if any, legitimate military targets and was overrun with civilians and irreplaceable art and architecture. He just wanted to spread brutal, vicious terror by killing as many civilians as possible -- the populace included 26,000 Allied prisoner of war -- and destroy the most beautiful cities in the world.

This act, far more than any other, was so profoundly immoral according to official U.S. diplomatic agreements and promises that the U.S. owes an apology for Dresden.

Shodan

09-27-2005, 09:11 AM

Well, since this thread has popped up again.

All my cites are from here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) (I am assuming wikipedia is an acceptable source; I don't really care for it, but it was used previously in the thread.)
Nonsense. Churchill -- in one of his irrational, drunken rages -- put Dresden on the bombing list personally, knowing full well that it had no few, if any, legitimate military targets and was overrun with civilians and irreplaceable art and architecture. He just wanted to spread brutal, vicious terror by killing as many civilians as possible -- the populace included 26,000 Allied prisoner of war -- and destroy the most beautiful cities in the world.I would need some kind of proof that Churchill was drunk when he put Dresden on the bombing list, or that his primary urge was to kill as many civilians as possible.
In response to the Soviet requests, (Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff) (who was in Yalta) sent a request to Bottomley to send him a list of objectives which could be discussed with the Soviets. The list sent back to him included oil plants, tank and aircraft factories and the cities of Berlin and Dresden. In the discussions which followed the Western Allies pointed out that unless Dresden was bombed as well, the Germans could route rail traffic through Dresden to compensate for any damage caused to Berlin and Leipzig. (Deputy Chief of the Soviet General Staff, General Aleksei) Antonov agreed and requested that Dresden was added to his list of requests.

As far as "few, if any military targets" -
An official 1942 guide described the German city as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with materiel[57].

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey listed at least 110 factories and industries in Dresden[58], albeit mainly in the outskirts, which were far less affected by the February 1945 raid. The city contained the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and the Siemens glass factory, both of which, according to the Allies, were entirely devoted to manufacturing military gunsights. The immediate suburbs contained factories building radar and electronics components, and fuses for anti-aircraft shells. Other factories produced gas masks, engines for Junkers aircraft and cockpit parts for Messerschmitt fighters[59].

Because of this concentration of industry, made even more important by the relatively undamaged nature of Dresden at the time of the raids, the allied planners had reason to believe that Dresden was a crucial prop in the German effort to maintain supply for the defense of Germany itself.
This act, far more than any other, was so profoundly immoral according to official U.S. diplomatic agreements and promises that the U.S. owes an apology for Dresden.
In this you agree with some other leading figures from WWII -
Goebbels had the numbers of the dead inflated by a factor of ten and German diplomats circulated the figures along with photographs of the destruction, the dead, and badly burned children in neutral countries. By coincidence, the day before the Dresden raid, a German Foreign Affairs document had been circulated to neutral countries criticising Arthur Harris "The arch enemy of Europe" and as a leading proponent of "Terror Bombing". [30]

On February 16 Goebbels ministry issued a press release which outlined the Nazi propaganda line: Dresden had no war industries, it was a place of culture and clinics[31]. On February 25 a new leaflet with photographs of two burnt children was released under the title "Dresden – Massacre of Refugees" and stating that not 100,000 but 200,000 had died.
I think the worst that can be said is that the bombing of Dresden is subject to many of the same objections and defenses as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ranging from "buyers remorse" at best and revisionist history at worst.

Regards,
Shodan

MMI

09-27-2005, 09:13 AM

Nonsense. Churchill -- in one of his irrational, drunken rages -- put Dresden on the bombing list personally, knowing full well that it had no few, if any, legitimate military targets and was overrun with civilians and irreplaceable art and architecture. He just wanted to spread brutal, vicious terror by killing as many civilians as possible -- the populace included 26,000 Allied prisoner of war -- and destroy the most beautiful cities in the world.

This act, far more than any other, was so profoundly immoral according to official U.S. diplomatic agreements and promises that the U.S. owes an apology for Dresden.

My understanding was that Dresden (on the American end at least) was a tran-plan target - the railyards. IIRC there was originally intelligence indicating a panzer division scheduled to be shipped through when the bombing raid was planned. Later intelligence indicated there would be no panzer division but neither the Americans nor the British saw fit to cancel their raids.

I don't think that the US should apologize for the dropping of the atomic bombs. I do feel that dropping the atomic bomb ended up being the "best" option for both the US and Japan. (Though I just read Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, which looks at the last months of the year from Japanese, American, and Soviet points of view and raises some interesting questions about some of the motivations and choices of the key decision makers on all sides http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674016939/qid=1127830848/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4086655-5550436?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 )

I still don't think that it was a win-win solution for Japan.