Rush Limbaugh--Atomic Bomb a "win-win" situation for Japan

The BBQ Pit
181

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.

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

182

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} :wink:

183

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.

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.” :wink: 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.

184

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.

185

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.

186

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:

187

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.

188

Cite?
[translation to Pit-ese] That’s just fucking wrong. [/translation]

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. It is not an unreasonable use of the word; its used that way when talking about geo-politics all the time.

189

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:

190

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.

191

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

192

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.

193

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:

Regards,
Shodan

194

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

195

Kunilou and Shodan…points well taken.

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.

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 when an A-bomb doesn’t kill you instantaneously.

196

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.

197

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.

198

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.

199

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.

200

Well, since this thread has popped up again.

All my cites are from here. (I am assuming wikipedia is an acceptable source; I don’t really care for it, but it was used previously in the thread.)

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.

As far as “few, if any military targets” -

In this you agree with some other leading figures from WWII -

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