WW2 and Hiroshima - split from DP thread.

[Superscribe]

No I don't think it was justified. Now I'll wait for you to tell me what my "value of life, and general understanding of extreme situations" is.

Well then I draw some conclusions about how you feel about punishment, revenge, your understanding of Japanese society, and the fact that you aren't a number's person when it comes to decisions about life and the value thereof. So i probably won't see a point in arguing with you.

See how easy that was?

[badpenny]

What a simplistic view of the world you conservatives enjoy. Part of the reason why we nuked Japan was just to scare the Russians, with whom we were already in an arms race. Was that a morally acceptable reason to kill 220,000 civillians at a blow? Why did we have to nuke two Japanese cities instead of just one? Why didn't we drop a demonstration nuke on a military base with a low civillian population, instead of nuking two metropolises full of civillians? Some ultra-conservative Catholics even have weird conspiracy theories concerning the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened to be the 2 cities in Japan with the highest populations of Catholic Japanese. At the time of the bombings, Emperor Hirohito had already been engaged in desperately trying to regain control of his renegade, war-crazy cabinet and compel them to surrender. Would he have succeeded without the bombings, or if the bombings had been more restrained? Could we have just settled for some kind of containment, given that Japan's offensive capabilities had been neutralized at that point in the war?

Actually, the true history of why the Japanese surrendered is just now coming out.

It turns out that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the surrender. It was in fact the Russian army entering the scene in Asia that finally convinced the Japanese military that it was time to submit. When Russia turned East, the Japanese army finally realized that their time had come, they could not occupy China and fight Russia at the same time while holding back the relentless US pressure from the sea.

I can dig up the internet pages that detail this, if you want, but even with out them, think about it: After the fire bombing of Tokyo on many occasions, along with many other cities (where the death toll was much higher than Hiro and Naga), do you really think the Japanese High Command gave two ****s about civilian causalties?

I don't know why the US choose to drop those bombs, I think if you know some history of the island wars in the Pacific, you might empathize with our leaders at the time, they were terrified of the US losses that a full scale invasion of Japan might generate. Oh, and Curtis Lemay was a war criminal and possible psychopath.

But please don't delude yourself as to the bombings effect. They accomplished nothing towards peace.

[thereom4]

Well then I draw some conclusions about how you feel about punishment, revenge, your understanding of Japanese society, and the fact that you aren't a number's person when it comes to decisions about life and the value thereof. So i probably won't see a point in arguing with you.

See how easy that was?

Because I don't think our bombing of Japan was justified (because I don't) you've concluded how I feel about punishment, revenge, and my understanding of Japanese society, and the "fact" that I'm not number's person when it comes to decisions about life and the value thereof?
Puh-lease. Clearly there is no point in arguing with YOU because you've said a whole lot of nothing.



^ Easier.

[pigeonmeister]

Actually, the true history of why the Japanese surrendered is just now coming out.

It turns out that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the surrender. It was in fact the Russian army entering the scene in Asia that finally convinced the Japanese military that it was time to submit. When Russia turned East, the Japanese army finally realized that their time had come, they could not occupy China and fight Russia at the same time while holding back the relentless US pressure from the sea.

I can dig up the internet pages that detail this, if you want, but even with out them, think about it: After the fire bombing of Tokyo on many occasions, along with many other cities (where the death toll was much higher than Hiro and Naga), do you really think the Japanese High Command gave two ****s about civilian causalties?

I don't know why the US choose to drop those bombs, I think if you know some history of the island wars in the Pacific, you might empathize with our leaders at the time, they were terrified of the US losses that a full scale invasion of Japan might generate. Oh, and Curtis Lemay was a war criminal and possible psychopath.

But please don't delude yourself as to the bombings effect. They accomplished nothing towards peace.

I tried not to get involved in this thread drift- but as the original debate has descended into a bizzare but elaborate smilies battle, and I can't resist a good historical debate (even one that comes up as regularly as this) here goes...

I think the best (not so) recent scholarship on this question was Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's 2005 book Racing the Enemy – Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan

Using a combination of Soviet, Japanese and American documents, Hasegawa, as badpenny suggests, convincingly demonstrates that Japan's decision to surrender was primarily influenced by the threat of Soviet invasion rather than American nuclear bombing. Though the latter did probably add a greater urgency to the decision.

It should be said, however, that Japan's relatively underwhelming response to the nuclear attacks (compared to the spectre of Soviet occupation) does not mean that Truman was not seeking to end the war more quickly. He was of course also concerned by Moscow's entry into the Pacific War- something he had previously sought until the atomic bomb had been tested.

That said, there were options available to all three parties that could have avoided nuclear strike.

Interestingly, Hasagawa lays the main blame on the Japanese policymakers who “must bear the responsibility for the war’s destructive end more than the American president and the Soviet dictator.”

Had they not delayed the surrender long after the end was clear, principally because of the emperor's concern that his dynasty would be abolished, then the threat of Soviet intervention would not have existed. Nor would the spectre of a nuclear strike.

The bottom line is by delaying the surrender, decisions became geo-political rather than military (or based on concern for civilian deaths).

[Bayou Bum]

Was nuking Japan justified? A yes/no response to that is indicative toward your value of life, and general understanding of extreme situations. I think some people have a very terrible opinion on the value of life.

Yes, it was justified. Japan's Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma said it was justified in July, 2007. Yes, hundreds of thousands were killed, but millions would have been killed in an invasion. Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration and even after two atomic bombs, it took five days before the surrender.

On 15 August 1945 Japanese soldiers, sailors, and civilians listened to the voice of a man on the radio they had revered as a god but rarely heard. Emperor Hirohito, the sovereign of Imperial Japan, announced the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire to the Allied Powers. This unprecedented act ended eight years of bloodshed endured by his people. Despite months of diplomatic maneuvering, the imperial decision to surrender unconditionally had only been made in the last twenty-four hours and was the direct result of the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima (6 August 1945) and Nagasaki (9 August 1945).

Clearly, the blame lay with the Japanese government for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some have argued that had the United States been willing to accept a conditional peace based on the proposal by Japan’s Lord Keeper in June, much of this unnecessary bloodshed could have been avoided. The United States, however, received few official indications that the Japanese government was serious about ending the war. Japan’s leaders were convinced that making a final stand in the home islands offered solid possibilities for raising the costs of an invasion beyond American capacities to stomach, and thereby opening a door to negotiations on Japanese terms. That postulate informed Japanese planning for the rest of World War II. The Americans had been attacked and brought into a war that they did not begin; therefore, it was not their place to begin peace negotiations either. All the Japanese had to do to end the war in June was really all they did to end it in August--accept the unconditional surrender. Because they did not, the Americans continued the war. The employment of the atomic bomb was the culmination of a U.S. attempt to end the Pacific war as quickly as possible by all military means available.

The employment of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the second bomb on Nagasaki has been justified by both American and Japanese accounts. The second atomic bomb, and the fear that the Americans would drop more in the coming days, proved crucial in Hirohito's decision to break the tie in the Suzuki Cabinet, spare his country further destruction, and accept the Potsdam Declaration without condition.

[jeff]

I'm enjoying the smileys (I had to save a few) and the thread-drift.

I'm on the side that thinks the atomic bombs were exactly the right thing to do, and it's revisionism and 60 years distance that makes the opposing position as popular as it now seems to be. That and compassion, which isn't a bad thing of course, but misses the context of the time. Not to mention that none of us here has to put their lives on the line in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. That makes it easier to suggest that bombings that eliminated the need for such an invasion weren't actually needed. We don't have to personally do an amphibious landing.

A time-line:

August 6: Hiroshima bombed
August 8: USSR declares was on Japan, invades Manchuria
August 9: Nagasaki bombed.
August 15: Japan announces its surrender.

Even assuming that the US could somehow know the state of the internal discussions within the Japanese command (how could they?) and bearing in mind that there wasn't a single voice, the timing between the two bombings is incredibly short and it doesn't seem that even an unambiguous message could have changed the decision to bomb or the decision to surrender in such a short span of time. The Internet wasn't there yet. Things took longer.

It seems odd to me to say that the Soviet threat caused the surrender and not the bombing, when the bombing provoked the Soviet declaration of war. Even if that's what motivated Japan's leaders to surrender then, the Soviet move provoked by the bombing; the bombing therefore is responsible at least by one level of indirection. No bomb -> no Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria -> no surrender.

All the major powers - without exception - had bloody hands from killing civilians. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. Add in Dresden, and all the other cities where civilians died en-masse, like Nanjing. What is different about the atomic bombing was that there was a single bomb that could cause the kind of destruction that normally would have required thousands of bombs - but that describes the effort, not the results. If killing civilians is wrong, the effectiveness of the tool that does it doesn't create a moral distinction.

I think you have to go to the state of mind in the US at the time. It's 1945, and millions of people have died. The US has suffered much less than most of the other countries, but nonetheless has had 400,000+ casualties. An invasion of Japan was expected to cost a million American lives and millions of Japanese lives. Seriously - what politician would have the stomach to suggest that degree of carnage when a way to end the war with far fewer US casualties would be available. Nobody who suggested such a thing would have survived - politically or even literally.

Also consider that about 10,000 Japanese civilians were dying every day in August 1945. If the A-bombs hastened the Japanese surrender by only a few weeks, then it was net positive for Japanese lives. Some years ago I read quotes from a Japanese politician who said that he was alive because the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

--pause--

I just pulled Max Hasting's Retribution from my bookshelf and reviewed it, along with the text of the Potsdam declaration and the Japanese rejection of it. Hastings makes a very compelling argument that the bombings were motivated primarily to compel Japanese surrender (with the effects on the Soviets secondary), that there was no provision in the planned series of bombings for a political pause to evaluate the situation after Hiroshima. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this issue go read this book and the relevant chapters. "Those who seek to argue that Japan was ready to surrender before Hiroshima are peddlers of fantasy"

[pigeonmeister]

I'm enjoying the smileys (I had to save a few) and the thread-drift.

I'm on the side that thinks the atomic bombs were exactly the right thing to do, and it's revisionism and 60 years distance that makes the opposing position as popular as it now seems to be. That and compassion, which isn't a bad thing of course, but misses the context of the time. Not to mention that none of us here has to put their lives on the line in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. That makes it easier to suggest that bombings that eliminated the need for such an invasion weren't actually needed. We don't have to personally do an amphibious landing.

A time-line:

August 6: Hiroshima bombed
August 8: USSR declares was on Japan, invades Manchuria
August 9: Nagasaki bombed.
August 15: Japan announces its surrender.

Even assuming that the US could somehow know the state of the internal discussions within the Japanese command (how could they?) and bearing in mind that there wasn't a single voice, the timing between the two bombings is incredibly short and it doesn't seem that even an unambiguous message could have changed the decision to bomb or the decision to surrender in such a short span of time. The Internet wasn't there yet. Things took longer.

It seems odd to me to say that the Soviet threat caused the surrender and not the bombing, when the bombing provoked the Soviet declaration of war. Even if that's what motivated Japan's leaders to surrender then, the Soviet move provoked by the bombing; the bombing therefore is responsible at least by one level of indirection. No bomb -> no Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria -> no surrender.

All the major powers - without exception - had bloody hands from killing civilians. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. Add in Dresden, and all the other cities where civilians died en-masse, like Nanjing. What is different about the atomic bombing was that there was a single bomb that could cause the kind of destruction that normally would have required thousands of bombs - but that describes the effort, not the results. If killing civilians is wrong, the effectiveness of the tool that does it doesn't create a moral distinction.

I think you have to go to the state of mind in the US at the time. It's 1945, and millions of people have died. The US has suffered much less than most of the other countries, but nonetheless has had 400,000+ casualties. An invasion of Japan was expected to cost a million American lives and millions of Japanese lives. Seriously - what politician would have the stomach to suggest that degree of carnage when a way to end the war with far fewer US casualties would be available. Nobody who suggested such a thing would have survived - politically or even literally.

I'm undecided, because I think all parties didn't do enough to prevent the bombings, but acknowledge your point regarding the immediacy of the situation. The balance of evidence also suggests that the Japanese govt are primarily responsible for the self inflicted destruction that occurred.

Some doubts...

1. Why no warning? I think even Hastings laments this. I do think that many within the Truman administration (and military) actually wanted to drop the bomb. The decision was highly politicised.

There is some evidence, provided by Hasagawa, that Truman “needed Japan’s refusal (of the Potsdam Ultimatum) to justify the use of the atomic bomb…thus…he could not include the provision providing a constitutional monarchy” in the ultimatum."

In other words, he knew that the emperor and his devotees cared more about the monarchy's survival than his civilians, but didn't indicate that it could still endure in a constitutional framework.

So the contention that Truman wanted to avoid a costly invasion still stands. The contention that he felt a geo-political need to drop the A bomb, that he did everything possible to achieve his goal of avoiding invasion without doing so, or that this goal was unachievable, is far more open. The point that Japan, already burning and experiencing 100,000s of civilian deaths, was motivated to accept the Potsdam terms because of the A bomb is also very far from clear.

I think all of these debates are fair regardless of the immediacy of the situation.

2. I find it curious that you attribute the Soviet entry into the war as purely a response to the dropping of the bomb. Would Stalin not have invaded Manchuria regardless? Was his cooperation not sought at Yalta (before bomb was tested?). A mere glance at the Russo-Japanese wars indicates his intent. Plus, the Soviet build up had been occuring for a long time before the bomb was dropped.

It seems far more likely that the bombing hoped to end the war before Stalin made further inroads into Japan than the bombing precipitated Stalin to try and make further inroads into Japan.

[Superscribe]

See, this is kind of why, but not exactly, the reason i asked a tough question. It's complicated, but you can definately get an answer if you reason through things. it's not like fencerchica's take on things, where you couldn't possible answer something with a black and white Yes/No, because there are so many questions to answer. Of course you can answer yes/no... you just have to take the time and think about it. For the record, I think the nuking was justified.

I'd like to point out the type of people who would would say it was unjustified.

"it just saddens me that so many people have to die when the conflict is between governments and not civilians."

I mean how much thought really goes into statements like that?

[Superscribe]

I don't know. About as much as simply judging yes without giving any indication of how or why you came to that conclusion?

Or maybe as much thought as it takes to scold someone for making a judgement you don't like without outlining why you don't like it?

Probably less thought than using your unsubstantiated judgement as a litmus test to establish everyone else's political and moral compasses?

I would think considerably less thought and research than you put into smilie identification.

(amateur, I know)

You're right, my personal vendetta got the best of me... but to seperate government from the civillians like that it is ridiculous. The two are tied together by definition. The two have to get involved, unless you wanted the Emperor of Japan to personally duel President of the United States, answering the age old question of what's better, a Japanese Katana or United States Cavalary Sabre. Or maybe Congress should have had a brawl with the Imperial Delegation? That's probably a better way to settle things.

And when civilians from one country start killing civilians from another country, the government needs to just chill out and let the civilians figure it out. Amirite?

My assumptions are heavy handed. I meant them to be that way, largely for effect. The statement i'm criticizing is something that was thought up to sound like it was sympathetic to the people and deeply morally insightful, but somebody pulled the chicken out before it was completely deep fried, and the watermelon hadn't been cut yet. My take on the "half baked idea".

I thought the idea of and topic on the litmus test really gave the discussion some wings though.

[jeff]

it just saddens me that so many people have to die when the conflict is between governments and not civilians.

It should go without saying that the deaths of millions is the great tragedy of the 20th century, but it's a big mistake to say "the conflict is between governments and not civilians" with WW II, as if the governments were space aliens and as if civilian attitudes were like those in recent limited wars that were controversial and divisive on the home fronts.

[Gav]

I fail to see what Hiroshima has to do with the Death Penalty.

[Superscribe]

I fail to see what Hiroshima has to do with the Death Penalty.

my bad.

I thought things were more interesting this way.

[pigeonmeister]

my bad.

I thought things were more interesting this way.

I'm being a bit dim, can people tell me if Superscribe is pulling my (our) chain on this thread!

[jeff]

I'm undecided, because I think all parties didn't do enough to prevent the bombings, but acknowledge your point regarding the immediacy of the situation. The balance of evidence also suggests that the Japanese govt are primarily responsible for the self inflicted destruction that occurred.

I agree with the last point, but don't think that "prevent the bombings" was a goal for the US govt. We're analyzing this from our perspective, not theirs, and we're giving them too much credit for understanding what nuking a city would be like (not that that would have changed the decision to bomb, IMO). To them it was a really, really, big bomb that would compel the Japanese to surrender right away instead of after a continued struggle that would kill many more Americans. That pretty much draws covers the main justification IMO.

Some doubts...

1. Why no warning? I think even Hastings laments this. I do think that many within the Truman administration (and military) actually wanted to drop the bomb. The decision was highly politicised.

Why warn? We were already firebombing them all the time, just as we (together with UK) mass-bombed cities in Europe. Hastings p.474 (paper edition) "It is a delusion of those who know nothing of battle to suppose that death inflicted by atomic weapons is uniquely terrible. In truth, conventional shells and bombs dismember human bodies in the most repulsive fashion."

We would have gone on (as Lemay wanted) to mass bomb. Even if we didn't do the invasion of Japan, that would have been death for hundreds of thousands of Japanese - by bomb, fire, and starvation. If we did the land invasion, then many, many more would have died - and not incidentally, hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Hastings, p476 goes on to give several reasons why a warning would have been ineffective. He does refer to regretting that Truman did not warn of the bomb, in the same sentence as supporting his decision. It is regrettable - hundreds of thousands died. But that doesn't make it other than a regrettable but necessary (at least in their judgement at the time) action.

There is some evidence, provided by Hasagawa, that Truman “needed Japan’s refusal (of the Potsdam Ultimatum) to justify the use of the atomic bomb…thus…he could not include the provision providing a constitutional monarchy” in the ultimatum."

In other words, he knew that the emperor and his devotees cared more about the monarchy's survival than his civilians, but didn't indicate that it could still endure in a constitutional framework.

There was no intent on anything but an unconditional surrender, so rejection of such was indeed a justification. Considering the abortive coup and the internal conflict about whether to surrender even after the bombs, and after the emperor had issued his statement to surrender - it's hard to imagine that less compelling, less catastrophic events would have compelled surrender until much later.

You can also (as Hastings does) refer to "technological determinism", which I interpret as "we made this great big bomb, and by God we're gonna use it". But that's not on a different moral plane than firebombing them and killing more people over a longer time period.

So the contention that Truman wanted to avoid a costly invasion still stands. The contention that he felt a geo-political need to drop the A bomb, that he did everything possible to achieve his goal of avoiding invasion without doing so, or that this goal was unachievable, is far more open. The point that Japan, already burning and experiencing 100,000s of civilian deaths, was motivated to accept the Potsdam terms because of the A bomb is also very far from clear.

The A-bomb, and indeed the Soviet invasion following immediately after first bomb, were very clearly what forced the Emperor's hands. And it was still a close thing.

I think all of these debates are fair regardless of the immediacy of the situation.

But we do have the luxury of discussing at length and with hindsight and access to historical archives. The decisions had to be made without those.

2. I find it curious that you attribute the Soviet entry into the war as purely a response to the dropping of the bomb. Would Stalin not have invaded Manchuria regardless? Was his cooperation not sought at Yalta (before bomb was tested?). A mere glance at the Russo-Japanese wars indicates his intent. Plus, the Soviet build up had been occuring for a long time before the bomb was dropped.

Of course - they didn't put together an army on the border in one day. But what compelled them to declare war and invade on August 8 if not for the bomb that fell on August 6? Stalin's cooperation was sought previously - and denied. Now he had to move quickly to realize his objectives. Sadly, the Soviet troops behaved as they did in Europe, mass raping and looting everywhere they went.

It seems far more likely that the bombing hoped to end the war before Stalin made further inroads into Japan than the bombing precipitated Stalin to try and make further inroads into Japan.

That doesn't follow at all. The bombing preceded Stalin's invasion, so there were no "further inroads" because there were no inroads at all.

[jeff]

I'm being a bit dim, can people tell me if Superscribe is pulling my (our) chain on this thread!

Hiroshima being one of those evergreen topics that exerts a gravitational pull on any other topic. Well, we haven't done Iran recently (despite the wealth of recent material), and US health care had a good run in August. Time for another old chestnut...

[pigeonmeister]

Jeff, no time now for interesting points re. WW2.

I'm sure that now Slim's on board he would like nothing better, however, than to chew the fat on Iran with me!

[thereom4]

It should go without saying that the deaths of millions is the great tragedy of the 20th century, but it's a big mistake to say "the conflict is between governments and not civilians" with WW II, as if the governments were space aliens and as if civilian attitudes were like those in recent limited wars that were controversial and divisive on the home fronts.

I understand what you are saying, but when a country's leadership governs like a dictatorship, I don't see the civilian population as having any choice in matters of life or death for them.

[Hauptman]

Yeah, because you took away their ability to fight back, you silly liberal.

Or possibly it happens when an administration uses lies and manipulations to take a country to war for it's own hypocritical political motives regardless of the lives of the soldiers and civilians involved.

Nooo... that could never happen here 'cause we have the second amendment to protect us all.... rigghhhtt....

[Slim]

Like Hauptman said.......intended.

Let's take a look at the statement and decompose it:

"it just saddens me that so many people have to die when the conflict is between governments and not civilians."

"it just saddens me..."

Used to terminate a conversation or argument by injecting emotions when a participant cant get anywhere using logic or rational thought.


"it just saddens me that so many people have to die..."

Well, duh. Who likes to see people die? It's an obvious statement. It was used to gain the moral high ground. "I'm sad, so I have emotions. Why aren't you sad too? You must be mean and have no soul."

Yes, I know it was intended. Silly liberal.

[Gav]

I split this off from the DP thread. Not sure if I got it all let me know if you want any more moved. Different topic and people seem to be enjoying discussing it so I thought I would give it it's own thread.