It isn’t discussed more because it was a clear-cut ‘best’ choice. Even after the 2nd nuke, the Japanese just barely decided to give in. I think Hirohito (sp) had to call in a lot of favors to get the military to go his way.
The Japanese just sort of shrugged Hiroshima off (hyperbole), as the Germans did when Dresden was firebombed, and, what, 70K people died in one night? The war continued. And, let’s be real, when a city disappears, 3 days is more than plenty of time to make a policy decision. Did the Japanese halt all military activity in that time? That tells what their answer is probably going to be.
Tone it down please. Saner world has nothing to do with fantasy, but is merely an acknowledgement that many decisions taken over the course of the war were not rational.
I believe a negotiated peace should have been attempted in 1944, as a huge amount of bloodshed could potentially have been avoided. I wouldn’t say the chance of success would be terribly high. What would the downside to such an approach be?
Not at all. Your basic assumption here is wrong. I wouldn’t support the goal of the Nazis winning World War II so I wouldn’t support any means that lead to that goal.
But I do think the United States winning World War II was a legitimate and worthwhile goal. So now you can fairly ask what I feel were the best means of achieving that goal. And I feel that the means that produced the fewest casualties is generally the best one.
You can’t separate the atomic bomb from the overall war. Attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki just for the sake of killing people would be morally wrong. Attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the sake of ending a war was morally right.
Well, for one, if it was accepted, it likely wouldn’t result in the changes to the Japanese government and people needed to prevent another war. Unconditional surrender meant the U.S. had an active hand in shaping post-war Japan, the result of which has been as successful as could be imagined.
The wrong peace just leads to the next war. See: the Treaty of Versailles.
Another world war?
Many people felt that one of the main causes of World War II was that Germany hadn’t accepted that it lost World War I. So the Allies wanted the Axis to understand that this was not going to be a half-peace where the Nazis and the Imperial War Council got to keep a portion of their power.
I think I got your basic assumption right. Which is “it’s all right when we do it.”
Was it ? Would you have a cite for that ? I’m not doubting your word, but my knowledge of the Pacific situation is lackluster to say the least and I wasn’t aware the situation on the Japanese mainland was that bad.
Well, yeah. But that’s because most everybody was frothing at the mouth assholes back then, essentially. This is also why I don’t particularly fault the Allied command of the times for making that decision - they were product of their times.
However, the debate we’re having is, I think, more interesting to have if we base judgement, and the “what should they have done”/“was that the right thing to do” musings on our more enlightened modern sensibilities. And shit.
The ultranationalists in power perhaps (what did *they *have to lose ? They were pretty much going to get hanged either way), but the population was all but ready to give up, at least if we are to believe this cite, quoting a Japanese civil servant at the time:
[QUOTE=Yutaka Akabane]
“It was the raids on the medium and smaller cities which had the worst effect and really brought home to the people the experience of bombing and a demoralization of faith in the outcome of the war… It was bad enough in so large a city as Tokyo, but much worse in the smaller cities, where most of the city would be wiped out. Through May and June the spirit of the people was crushed. (When B-29s dropped propaganda pamphlets) the morale of the people sank terrifically, reaching a low point in July, at which time there was no longer hope of victory or draw but merely desire for ending the war.”
[/QUOTE]
At this point, even the more gung-ho of nationalists knew things were beyond hopeless, and further fighting pointless. I do wonder if driving the nail further in really accomplished anything, and seriously question whether those divisions “ready to fight to the death” and with spears and shovels if necessary would indeed have been as spectacularly motivated as, say, Werwolf brigades or the Volksturm were in Germany (yes, I’m being sarcastic here).
If it’s successful you’re negotiating and making peace with the ultranationalist government that thought attacking Pearl Harbor and the Philippines was a good idea, then did this to the prisoners. And that’s just a brief overview. The American public would never stand for it. I’d go so far as to say that if Roosevelt attempted it would have been grounds for impeachment.
And that’s not mentioning their greater crimes against the rest of East Asia, waging an aggressive and brutal war of conquest. See Japanese war crimes. Would you really want to make peace with such a regime? The Allies agreed in 1943 at Casablanca that the Axis powers must be utterly dismantled. In Germany, like Japan, it likely prolonged the war but history has vindicated the Allies. Nazism, Italian Fascism and pseudo-Bushido nationalism have not posed a threat to world peace since the Missouri sailed into Tokyo Bay.
It’s not too often we agree on things, but you are spot on. Further, remember what the country had been through during the past 4 years:
Hundreds of thousands of young men dead. Women working for the first time, many of them now widows. Rationing, scrap drives, and buy war bonds for the troops. Remember Pearl Harbor.
The Greatest Generation made a sacrifice that none of us since then can even imagine, and if we had to do a tenth of what they did, we would whine until the end of our days.
So after doing all of that, the United States government has a weapon that can put a stop to it. Do we NOT use it because of some pseudo-futuristic idea of morality that was unknown then? Do we tell the whole population that you have to keep on keeping on for 3 or 4 MORE years just so we can satisfy people in the future that at least we didn’t use an atomic weapon?
My grandfather was aboard a Navy ship in the South Pacific when he got word that “the bomb” had been dropped on Japan. I was in high school when I first heard that some people were against the idea. I asked my grandfather what he thought about people upset about dropping the bomb. He visibly was shaken and red faced and started to rant about how young people didn’t understand what went on “at the time.”
He said that nobody on his ship would have cared if they sank the “whole damned island.” From a grandfather that never used profanity, his use of “damned” made me feel bad for even asking the question. I agree with other posters: We can’t compare our attitudes with those who went through what they did in the early 1940s.
That I can’t talk about with any certainty. I don’t think anyone could, much less me. I’m no WWII historian; my only interest is in the development and use of nuclear weapons at the time.
However, I can guess that even if there was anything that could have convinced Japan to agree to peace, they’d have wanted things in return. And I can guess that none of those things would have been acceptable. I can further guess they’d have wanted the right to keep and rebuild their military - and can you imagine if Japan had remained a power in the already unstable world of tenuous alliances and uncertainty that followed the war? Or if they’d been a power during the Cold War?
No, I’m convinced the outcome we got was the best of all possible outcomes. I’m grateful to everyone involved in saving the world from what were some of the most horrifying events of the modern age.
Perhaps, but who can say what the wrong peace is? It seems quite likely that the rise of the USSR would have driven Japan into the US sphere of influence anyway.
That’s a little rose-tinted I’m sad to say. The occupation of Japan actually had little impact on the composition of the country’s political and business leaders. Many of those that were purged from the government returned in the early 50s. The occupation was far from a bloodless affair. At the very least, you should take a look at the wiki article. Rape was common, but all mention of criminal activity by the occupying forces was censored. Probably the most positive legacy was Japan’s new constitution, but prosperity came much later.
The US would have had the atomic bomb in 1945 anyway, so another war with Japan would have been very unlikely. Nor would Japan have the resources to develop nuclear weapons for many years.
And it went on after 1940, too! 
backatcha 
Yep.
If nothing else people were just tired of that shit. When you are worn out and thoroughly tired of that shit at some point you don’t really give a flying fuck about how ending it effects the folks that started the shit in the first place and did their best to keep up the shit and make it as difficult and uncivilized as it could be to boot.
Hell, I didn’t even have to suffer through any of that crap and I have little trouble getting into it a “it sucks to be you” state of mind about the whole thing.
Though, even on an intellectual, practical, and moral level I still think both bombings were totally justified. Certainly IMO justified enough that at best its a case of “maybe things could have been played out a bit differently” and certainly not evil dialed up to elevently.
Basically. I’m willing to stand by my opinion that the United States was morally superior to Nazi Germany.
If you were Chinese, it would have started years earlier than 39.
Well, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’…but yeah, the situation on the mainland was really that bad. Older family members on my wife’s side talk about people essentially starving to death up to a year or so *after *the war ended - their account suggests not so much people ‘dying after not having anything to eat’, but becoming so mal-nourished and weak that they died from other causes that they normally wouldn’t have died from.
I truly have no idea what you are trying to convey.
It seems you are writing that we should have not killed civilians via bombing in the first place. When tens of millions or people are being killed, the most import thing to do is stop the war by defeating your enemy in the most expeditious way possible.
I’d like you to answer to this question please. Do you really think it’s better and/or more moral to kill another 3-4 million in the invasion than it was to kill 80,000 with an atomic bomb? That is really the only question.
Negotiating with war criminals is a horrible thing to contemplate, but in fact it’s not so different with what actually happened. Hirohito, for example, was absolved of all responsibility, and as I said in my last post, the post-war make-up of Japan’s government was not radically changed. Some war criminals were punished, while others were not. Practicality often trumped justice.
So really, the question is, was that measure of justice worth the lives and suffering caused by another year of war in the Pacific? That’s not a decision I’d want to have to take.
In war, often there are no good options.
True, but that may have more to do with the development of nuclear weapons and dynamics of the cold war and the than the decisions made at Casablanca. And there have been several wars and genocides since WWII.
WWII was a victory of less-evil over evil. The British had the Empire. The US, segregation. The USSR, oppression and purges.
Despite the huge uncertainties, I believe it’s worthwhile to reflect on the different courses history could have taken.
I also think that’s likely, based on the decisions the Japanese high command took. But who can say for sure?
I disagree here. Somewhere, there was a less bloody and painful path through the 20th century.
I’m grateful towards the people who fought in the war. My attitude towards the allied leaders is far more ambivalent. I sympathize with their dilemmas, but am appalled by some of their decisions.
I subscribe to the Dan Carlin view, which I would summarize as:
-Deliberately bombing civilian populations was a war crime. HOWEVER…
-We’re talking about a war that was war crimes from beginning to end.
-The atomic bombs were just the technological endpoint of a program of strategic industrial and terror bombing, which developed out of a revolutionary change in warfare brought about by rapid advances in aeronautics. Much of the doctrine and tactics surrounding air warfare was purely theoretical in the interwar period, and was only practiced and perfected during the Spanish civil war and WWII itself.
-Thus, you can’t set aside the atomic bombings as unique atrocities. They have to be evaluated along with the conventional bombing raids against civilian centers. And the conventional bombing raids were a consequence of new air technology and the theories that arose during the interwar period regarding the capabilities of this technology. Those theories proceed from initially utopian, science fiction notions of how air war will work (It will mean the end of war!), to the realization that you can’t count on your enemies to conduct such warfare with restraint, to the conclusions arrived at through practice that precise attacks on military and industrial targets aren’t effective and you have to set entire cities on fire. Dan Carlin refers to this progression as “logical insanity.” The steps taken make perfect sense in a coldly calculated military sense, but the end result is insane: you’re torching cities full of women and children.
If you like podcasts, check out Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast on this subject, Logical Insanity. You’ll learn interesting stuff about the development of air warfare, such as the British theorist who thought it would proceed as sort of a game of chess - you would select an enemy city to target, you’d give the enemy notice so they could evacuate the city of civilians, and you’d bomb the city at night to minimize civilian casualties.
Although Churchill didn’t cross the starting line either 
Atlee would be a very divise figure in Britain… if any more than about 1 in 10 people under 30 had heard of him. UK ignorance of domestic 20th century history is astoundingly lax.
What you can say about Atlee *objectively * (or as objectively as one can be about these things) is that out of all the 20th century PMs he came closest out of all the PMs to implementing his objectives in line with his principles - and they were radical proposals indeed.
Perfectly reasonable arguments can be made that he both destroyed the country and Empire and that he saved it (and the peoples of the empire). Very rarely will you hear those arguments made by the same people.
Thatcher probably comes second in terms of acheiving objectives in line with principles and similar arguments are made about her.
I am a huge fan of all three of these PMs, but I have very unusual (statistically speaking) political beliefs.