Well, those British milk routes are free-fire zones, y’know.
While not Chinese babies and not routinely…uh, I won’t spoil it completely, but check out the documentary The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On.
Since you missed out on some keys things that lead up to this post, I’ll make it short. Gonzo has claimed that the USA did not give the Japanese enough time to surrender before dropping the second nuke. Basically, he claims that the whole country was in a shocking daze thus unable to surrender. Tristan was pointing out that a survivor of the first bombing not only was not shocked by the event, but begged forgiveness of his inactivity and went back to work to get nuked again.
At least that’s what I got from the post.
Trtistan was. Bryan still can’t get an answer to his question about Okinawa.
I am not defending the Japanese. What they did in the war is beyond human understanding. In Manchuria they were the equals of the Nazis. Perhaps they were even worse. They were disgusting. The Japanese soldiers were capable of horrific acts. Now get back to the subject. We left Hiroshima unbombed so we could determine how effective the A bomb was. It was a scientific and military experiment as much as anything else. We were going to use it no matter what. The second was also predetermined. We did not give then sufficient time after the first one. Politics just takes time. We did not want a surrender until the tests were done.
I hate that we used the bomb. I hate more that we did it twice.
I have no blind spot for the Japanese. It is for us that I feel sad. We are the only nation to ever use one and we did it twice. That is nothing to be proud of.
There are plenty of military and political insiders who believed it was wrong to use them. There are many who like most of you, want to claim it was correct. Therefore we debate. Simply declaring that your side won is BS. Denying that we have a need to justify it is also wrong. I have no problem facing who and what we are.I do not sugarcoat our history. How do you get better if you cover up your past?
My take on it was you had to nuke a Japanese person AT LEAST twice before they would quit showing up for work. Obviously once wasnt going to cut it.
War machine…work…two bombs…seems to make sense to me.
I wrote this in jest, but in hindsight I think there is a valid point about Japanese societal views at the time.
I suppose those who say I am wrong should have heard :
Ike, MacArthur, Adm. Leahy, Herbert Hoover, Jos. Grew under Secty of State, Navy ,sec bard, Asst. sect of War McCloy, Lewis Strauss asst Sec Navy, Paul Nitze Head of Strategic bombing survey, Einstein, Szilard, The Franc report, Det. Dir, Intelligence Zacharias, Gen, Carl Spaatz, Brig, Gen. Carter Clark. Yep there were a lot of people in the know who thought the bombs were wrong. But how can they be a knowledgeable as the dopers, who have a need to feel better about what we did?
Do you have a cite for this? You’re presumably talking about Yamaguchi Tsutomu, but the only source I can find for the confrontation with his boss in Nagasaki is from National Review.
Did you miss the part where I quoted the Foreign Minister, who talked about government meetings in the immediate aftermath? They were well aware of what it was, and were still holding out for a conditional peace.
Are you serious? We didn’t want a surrender? So if the Japanese had sent the telegram of the 10th, before Hiroshima we would have still dropped the bombs? We tested it Trinity. The primary goal, as stated by all of the Allies, was to force unconditional surrender as soon as possible by any means possible. The sooner the better, for it would saved the lives of our troops, their troops, their civilians and the people who had been under the Japanese yoke for the past 9 years.
Because of an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with the practicalities of war, or the situation as it existed in August 1945.
Well, you’re doing a splendid job of making it seem like your side is losing. We present cites that the Japanese were nowhere near surrender, you ignore them and repeat that the big bad Allies were evil for dropping a bomb that killed fewer people than conventional bombing runs. There was no better alternative. That’s where your blind spot is.
Who’s proud of it? Your caricature of those of us who don’t share your views grows more extreme: We’re proud to have used the bomb, we’re desperately in need of justifying it because we can’t face the truth.
No, some of us just looked at all the evidence and decided that, for all the horror of using them, the alternative were worse.
And there are plenty more who believe it was the correct decision. But they don’t agree with you, so they’re less credible, right?
No one’s simply declaring victory. My side keeps piling cites upon cites that the Japanese weren’t about to surrender, that the bombs were necessary to push them into it, and that the alternatives were worse by any reasonable estimation at the time (and history has proven those estimations correct, for the most part).
Viewing us as dogmatically evil is no more noble and brave than viewing us as dogmatically good. How do you get better when you disconnect yourself from evidence that might change your view?
In many ways, we are, in fact, more knowledgeable than those authorities. We have interviews with the relevant people on the Japanese side who clearly demonstrate that the Japanese were not about to surrender unconditionally, or even conditionally with acceptable terms.
It’s not surprising that, at the time and afterwards, there was a range of opinion on the subject, including some knowledgeable people. There were other knowledgeable people who disagreed. But I forget myself: Your standard for credibility is whether or not someone agrees with you.
I read it again and while I won’t side with gonzomax yet, I still think that post shows a strange disregard for the Japanese suffering from the bombings. It seems to me that Tristan is saying because one man went back to work, he must not have suffered very much at all. Another interpretation would be that he was severely shocked, but mustered the courage and patriotism or whatever to go back to work. Begging for forgiveness to me is more likely a sign of the extreme stoicism and sense of duty that the society as a whole had, not a sign that nobody was affected by the bombings.
Anyway, I’m from being informed for debate here, but maybe someone won’t mind schooling me a little. What is the reason for the view that huge numbers of civilian deaths is the ideal way to end a war? Was it out of the question to selectively assassinate the Emperor and the Prime Minister and whoever else was insane and in a position of power? (Perhaps with covert ops or smaller targeted bombs…)
I’m not saying you are. What I’m saying is that is doesn’t seem to matter to you who the target of the A-bomb is. It could be the wartime Japanese, or Satan himself at his biblical nadir, and I predict that you’d still be coming up with specious reasons why using the A-bomb is worse, still.
So? It was also useful to pick a largely untouched area, bomb it, and demonstrate how quickly and thoroughly it could be done as a means of convincing the Japanese to yield.
And I call bullshit. Maybe you’d be half-right if Japan was a democracy and the pace of political decisions was slow because there were different branches of government that had to approve of any drastic action, but Japan in 1945 was a military dictatorship, and by your claim, one that was actively seeking surrender terms. You have failed to explain why such terms could not be offered within hours of Hiroshima, except to blame it on “shock”. I was not aware the military leadership of Japan was so delicate.
No, you have a blind spot regarding nuclear weapons. I can only assume that if the nukes had been used against Germany (as originally intended), you’d be arguing that that was evil, regardless of any evidence we might bring forth of wartime necessity or ongoing Nazi atrocities.
Well, I’m doing it anyway, because you’ve given me no reason to do otherwise.
What past do you assume is being covered up? I have no illusions about how devastating nuclear weapons are. I also have no illusions about how difficult and bloody an invasion of Japan would be because unlike you, I recognize the level of resistance Americans faced in Okinawa.
Will you recognize, at long last, that mass suicides and banzai charges occured in Okinawa?
I’ve wanted to avoid this discussion (since it’s been beaten to death in the past), but:
This is pure deception. Every one of these (those that haven’t had their statements twisted all out of context) had their own reasons for seemingly oppose the dropping of the bomb, and in very few cases did it have anything to do with morals. ‘Wrong’, in most of these cases meant ‘it’s not being done the way I WANT it done’, not ‘It’s wrong and evil to do this’. MacArthur, for instance, opposed the use of the bomb because he wanted the ground invasion to proceed. The bomb would not provide a lot of opportunity for glory, after all.
As others have said, we actually know a lot more today than they did when they were making these decisions. For instance, we know that the Japanese had very successfully hidden many of their defenses, and that they had build massive coastal defenses. We know what the allies invasion plans were…and we know that the Japanese had very shrewdly guessed exactly where the allies WOULD initially land, and had planned some VERY nasty surprises. We also know that, while some elements of the Japanese civil government seemed divided, the elements that actually mattered (i.e. the military factions) were pretty much rock solid in their determination to fight on or at the most to agree to cease fire terms that would have kept them in power with the potential to rebuild things as they were…terms that would have been completely unacceptable to the allies.
In the end it’s revisionist history that even has this as a ‘debate’. If not for the bombs (and even after the first one, the Japanese military factions were STILL unconvinced they needed to throw in the towel), the allies would have invaded. There is no question of that. And there is no question that hundreds of thousands of allied troops would have been killed or wounded. There is also no question that, in the end, after horrific casualties (military AND civilian), the Japanese would have lost. And there is no question that the death toll would have been MUCH higher, both allied and Japanese, had we invaded. The bombs, while distasteful, were most certainly the lesser of two evils. That war needed to end so that the whole world could heal.
-XT
If I may suggest, modern warfare requires an extensive industrial base to build things like rifles, bullets, ships, planes, tanks etc. As a result, taking out the industrial centers (and the people who work in them) could be a reasonable objective. It’s not like ancient times, where a village blacksmith might hammer out some swords or chain-mail in his smithy, and the peasantry just works the fields. If a modern factory spitting out fighter planes has 10,000 blue-collar employees, you might just have to blow up that factory and if the 10,000 employees happen to be in it at the time, that’s just the price of modern total war.
In Japan, in 1945? I’d say “out of the question” is an understatement. How do your commandos get within a hundred miles of these high-value targets? Heck, even in the modern era, just tracking down Saddam Hussein took quite a while, and that’s with Americans and British moving around Iraq fairly freely. Picture trying to insert a commando team in early 2002 to accomplish that goal.
Assassinating the Emperor or key members of the cabinet was impossible. Covert operations in wartime Japan in WWII is a fantasy, and the air force had no such thing as precision guided munitions that would make more selective targeting possible, if they even knew the Emperor’s location (which they could have carpet bombed if they had).
As for why killing large numbers of civilians with atomic bombs was the preferable way to end the war, there are two moral issues wrapped up in that question: Is targeting civilians for destruction a justifiable strategic method, and is the use of atomic bombs to do so justifiable?
For the first question, I think history has come down on the ‘no’ side. The strategy of targeting civilians and cities was proven not to be particularly effective at ending the war or even changing its course much in general–it was just killing a lot of civilians. It’s important to note that, at the time, there was a sincere belief in it as a strategic method. It’s not that Bomber Harris wanted a lot of dead German hausfraus–they honestly were pursuing a strategy of demoralizing the civilian population by making them feel the brunt of the war themselves.
For the second, it’s trickier, but the general historical perspective is that more would have died in either a conventional invasion, or a blockade waiting for Japan’s surrender. It’s a simple question of “how many bodies?” Killing 200,000 with atomic bombs ended the war. Projections on U.S. casualties alone for an invasion run to a half million (the number of purple heart medals the U.S. created to handle an invasion is indicative of this); presumably the Japanese toll would be higher, since it includes the destruction of their armed forces, of which there were at least 900,000 on Honshu, and Okinawa and Iwo Jima demonstrated that 95% of them would fight to the death. Projections on Japanese deaths in the event of a blockade had about 100,000 starving to death per month, and given the cabinet’s feelings on surrender, a blockade would likely have continued for a long time.
I know you’re going to hate reading this, but you probably need to go back and read everything written so far. Selective assassination of the Emperor and the Prime Minister would not have ended the war. In fact, the day of the radio address to surrender there was an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister twice and a coup to remove the Emperor. It’s called the Kyūjō Incident. If it were to succeed, the war would have continued.
The argument has been that the nukes actually count down on the number of deaths. Conventional bombing would have killed more people. Invasion would have killed more people. Again, you really need to read the information posted in the prevous pages. It’s more detailed…
So that answers my question. Just to clarify, the US had no real idea of where the Emperor, Prime Minister, cabinet, or other military head honchos were located? I’m curious, do we now know after the fact where they all were?
But is this contradictory with the actual results of history (and the next part of your answer)? If it wasn’t demoralization, what convinced the Japanese in the end?
But if 200,000 or so deaths was the tipping point for that situation, could conventional bombing runs achieved the same result? What reasons were there for the bomb to be atomic? Emotionally, all I can think of is that America wanted field testing on real live people for a powerful new technology, and they went out of their way to set up such an experiment. In light of such suspicions it’s hard to accept that America really had Japan’s best interests at heart.
Perhaps I do, but can you agree with my first point that the case of the man going to work after being bombed is no reason to think that the bombing was trivial?
Also, I am not hung up on perfectly selective assassination of only the Emperor and the PM. I meant assassination in the relative sense, say dropping one bomb on the palace instead of leveling cities. And by the Emperor and PM I just meant whoever was the driving force behind Japanese aggression, whoever that might have been.
No, at the time we had only a vague idea where any of those folks were at any given time (i.e. ‘somewhere in Japan’). I’d guess that today, historians have a pretty good idea where they were, looking through the historical records.
In the end it was the Emperor who decided to throw in the towel, for a variety of reasons. Certainly there were others who wanted too (and there were even factions who never wanted a war with the US in the first place), but the important factions were still pretty much determined to get the best terms they could, regardless of the cost in lives, and the civilians and military were both prepared to pay whatever costs asked of them, for honors sake.
Conventional bombing would not have made the Japanese surrender…at least not on any kind of short time scale. And the cumulative effect would have been more deaths (and this leaves off the whole invasion aspect, which was building up, with both the US and Soviets moving substantial forces to the area, not to mention the other allies).
While I’m not going to say that seeing how the bomb worked had zero impact on the decision, the biggest part was the estimates of a million allied causalities for an invasion (at the top end…several hundred thousand at the bottom, but we know now that the top end would have been most likely). Imagine had we invaded and the worst came to pass…and then it came out that we had a bomb that could have saved all those allied lives. We didn’t have Japan’s best interests at heart, but our own. How happy do you think the folks would have been back home to know that we didn’t use it? How happy do you suppose the Japanese would be today had they sustained millions of casualties and had ALL of their cities destroyed?
-XT
The Emperor had a bomb shelter underneath the Imperial Palace in Toyko.
Later on we actually tried aiming at the Imperial Palace. Unfortunately bombing wasn’t exactly a precise science back then (or now);
They were perfectly happy to throw lives away to gain peace on their own terms, through an invasion. But against a weapon like the A-bomb there is no defence. They didn’t want to commit national suicide.
Conventional bombing had been going on for some time. The tipping point was really the fact that one bomb could do the same amount of damage as 2000 B-29s (as proclaimed in leaflets dropped over Japan by the Allies).
We tried that and missed. There’s also the argument that you need someone with the authority to surrender, who can give the order for troops to lay down their arms. The Emperor was this person. Killing him might have been a very bad idea for the same reason we didn’t blow up Mt. Fuju (or assassinate Hitler - you can imagine the nationalist apologetics bemoaning if only they had their dear leader, none of this would have happened). Hirohito was considered by the Junta to be, well, a little more than human. It was also the Emperor who was instrumental in swaying the cabinet to surrender after the bombs were dropped.
“The Emperor approved of my view, and warned that since we could no longer continue the struggle, now that a weapon of this devastating power was used against us, we should not let slip the opportunity by engaging in attempts to gain more favorable conditions”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm