I can’t believe this conversation is still going. Good news – you can repeat it the day after tomorrow if you’d like! And again next August! Although the conclusion will always be the same: however we may feel about Truman (D)’s decision – it worked. After over more than 60 million dead, and against an aggressor who’d been waging war against its neighbors since before your grandparents had even heard Hitler’s name, he ended the war in the space of one week. Cost in American lives – zero.

That’s always going to be the end of the discussion. About the only interesting point raised in this thread is Bradky’s question about the necessity and/or timing of the Nagasaki bomb, which – in hindsight – is at least worth discussing.

Although I submit that in August 1945, there wouldn’t have been much to debate about it. I think one thing missing in much of this thread is a real attempt to imagine making these decisions in the actual context in which they were made.

I believe simply this: just about anyone – even our less educated and more emotive friends in this thread – if they’d actually been in that time and place, at the end of a war that had already claimed 600,000 American lives and half a million British lives and tens of millions of Allied lives, if given a chance to end the war … they’d have done exactly as Truman did.

Anyone who claims otherwise – or at least claims otherwise quickly and easily – is either lying to us, lying to themselves, or simply lacks the imagination to really picture the decision Truman faced.

———————-

And I really cannot believe that, with all the potentially interesting historical aspects to discuss, some of you are still obsessing over “Jap.”

Here’s an idea: Bradky, get off your fricking high horse. We get it. The rest of you: quit using it. Obviously it offends some people, including the guy who started the thread.

Why not turn the discussion towards the future – and the one truly relevant question raised:

How many young Americans died before we realized the tenacious nature of the enemy (Japanese)?

Now, we face an equally unyielding foe: Nazi Islam.

What will it take? One million dead Americans? Sharia law replacing our Constitution? Korans in every school?

saved on August 7, 2007 at 7:18 AM

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 8:28 AM

Got to disagree with you on this one. This thread COULD have plenty of life left in it. We have only TOUCHED on THIS facet of the bombings:

It also saved the Japanese a Russian invasion and subsequent Soviet domination..

aengus on August 6, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Not to mention that although Stalin KNEW about the Manhattan project (from Soviet espionage), the A-bombs stopped him dead in his tracks.

CyberCipher on August 7, 2007 at 1:50 PM

That’s a very good point. One of the many fables that the historical revisionists seem to swallow unthinkingly is this: they seem to believe that if we hadn’t dropped the bombs – not only would Japan have just peaceably surrendered, but NO OTHER unintended consequences would have occurred.

Setting aside the abject stupidity of those whose only alternative to Truman’s decision was “do nothing and wait” (hard to believe that’s the best the critics can do!), they still ignore other possible consequences.

One thing is indisputable: we know what happened after Nagasaki. It worked. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally within a week.

The possible ramifications for Japan if we hadn’t ended the war then – if the Russians had turned Japan into a Germany-like balkanized country, or simply stolen the whole thing – would have been unimaginable. Or, since it’s speculation, they might have been that unimaginable.

Maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded.

Then again, maybe the Cowboys and Titans will play in the Superbowl this year, and I’ll have tickets on the 50 yard line. Sitting next to Jessica Alba.

It’s equally likely. Not impossible, but just about the same odds. The fact is that the war ended when it did because of Nagasaki. The possible consequences – not just for Japan but for the United States, for the Cold War, for the whole species – if we hadn’t ended it then are truly frightening.

Those who condemn Truman never, ever take this into account. In their fantasy, everything just ends nicely, the Russians go home happy, and everything is puppy dogs and rainbows.

It’s a very good point.

—————————————

Another thing largely overlooked in this thread is the fact that the allies were insisting on UNCONDITIONAL surrender. The Japanese did indeed float surrender options out there … but always with conditions.

The American people, our European allies, the Russians, the Chinese … none of them would have accepted anything other than unconditional surrender.

It’s an important point. If you’re going to argue that the Japanese would have eventually surrendered anyway, you have to argue for a scenario in which they’d abandon all conditions to that surrender.

——————————

A final overlooked point: some of the more clueless posters tried hard to make it sound like the Japanese were just sitting peacefully waiting for an invasion – that no other fighting was occurring.

This is factually in accurate. Others have noted all the preparations for war (including biological weapons manufacturing) that the Japanese were doing; they were also still fighting throughout Asia.

And let’s not forget that they were still holding – and starving, and torturing – thousands of Allied prisoners.

Those who suggest that we should have done nothing but wait (especially if they want to pretend their basing that silliness on “morality”) have to also consider the Chinese soldiers dying every single day the war continued … and even the Japanese soldiers dying every single day the war continued … and they must also consider those thousands of prisoners – many Americans – going through unimaginable Hell.

To claim morality, you have to claim all of it. You have to be willing to acknowledge that you’ll be starving our own countrymen to death by waiting.

This is what I meant yesterday about making hard choices and avoiding the overly simplistic black-and-white thinking when looking back with hindsight. Truman had to – in real-time – consider all of the circumstances.

And lastly, let’s not forget the obvious: this was war, and he was the American President. It was his job to place his country’s safety and the lives of Americans ahead of the lives of our enemies. To do anything else would be quintessentially immoral.

Personally, I don’t know how much Truman cared about saving Japanese lives – although he saved millions. I think he cared about ending the war without further Allied bloodshed. I think he cared about our prisoners being tortured and starved. The fact that his choice ended up also being the most merciful towards our enemies is just the final irony that defeats the weak feigned morality of critics looking back from 60 years in the future.

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM

MacArthur, for example, believed that if we allowed the Emperor to keep his title, he would’ve surrendered.

He’s back! And with even more historical inaccuracy!

The problem with the above quoted position – and with MacArthur’s argument – is that it had been made abundantly, explicitly clear that nobody would accept a conditional surrender.

In fact, the problem with every statement you’ve made in this thread is that they are all – all – based on misstatements of fact.

Some actual facts: the American people – not to mention the citizens of just about every Allied nation – overwhelmingly were insisting on unconditional surrender. The Asian nations that had been directly victimized by the Imperial government expressly stated that they wouldn’t agree to stop fighting unless the Japanese surrendered UNCONDITIONALLY.

And of course the key point has to be the Russians. The Potsdam of July 26, 1945 was a last ditch effort to stop a Russian invasion – without resorting to either American invasion or bombing. It was Japan’s last chance – and the very last chance Truman had to avoid Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There was exactly one way to avoid an Allied invasion: with Japan’s unconditional surrender. You may not understand this simple point, but Japan did – as their ambassador noted on July 30th:

There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia’s participation in the war

And of course the Potsdam declaration specifically required unconditional surrender:

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

The Japanese ignored it, my clueless young friend. Even AFTER the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, although the Emperor himself was leaning towards unconditional surrender, most of his advisers were still opposed. Even AFTER both nuclear bombings, the Japanese military was resisting any surrender that might lessen the role of the Emperor:

According to General Sumihisa Ikeda and Admiral Zenshirô Hoshina, Privy Coucil President Hiranuma Kiichirō then turned to the Emperor and asked him : “Your majesty, you also bear responsibility (sekinin) for this defeat. What apology are you going to make to the heroic spirits of the imperial founder of your house and your other imperial ancestors?” [11]

Once the Emperor had left; Suzuki pushed the cabinet to accept the Emperor’s will, which it did.

The Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies, announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration but would not comprise any demand which would prejudice the prerogatives of the Emperor. That effectively meant that the Tenno would remain a position of real power within the government—power that was normally wielded in his name by the people at the tops of the military and governmental hierarchies.

The response from the Allies was received on August 12. On the status of the Emperor it said,

“From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. …

And of course, while the Japanese dithered and their cities burned, on August 9th – shortly before the Nagasaki bombing – the Russians did, in fact, invade Manchuria. Any question about whether or not to use the second bomb ended then and there; the war had to be ended immediately – or Japan would inevitably face invasion, either from the Russians or the Americans or both.

Not to mention the possibility of a Russian-American conflict rising out of the rubble.

As last as August 13th, the possibility of a military coup was still real – and many in Japan were still in favor of resisting:

On August 13, the Big Six and the cabinet were still deadlocked. The next day, with leaflets dropped from B-29s describing the Japanese offer of surrender and the Allied response, Suzuki, Kido, and the Emperor realized the day would end with either an acceptance of the American terms or a military coup.

In fact, what a lot of people don’t know is that there WAS a military coup on August 14th. It failed – but even at that point we still faced the possibility of an invasion.

Finally – and again something most don’t know – Allied forces had to launch massive bombing raids on the night of August 14th:

During the night of August 14 and August 15, the final and largest bombing raid of the Pacific War was launched. Eight hundred bombers and two hundred fighters of the United States Army Air Corps dropped over 6,000 tons of explosives and incendiary weapons on eight Japanese cities.

It was only the next day that Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender, formally signed on September 2nd.

———————–

The bottom line that necessarily defeats your illogical position: the only way to prevent an invasion – either American or Russian – was for Japan to unconditionally surrender.

They refused to do so. Only after both bombings, a Russian invasion of Manchuria, and massive conventional bombing of other targets, did Japan finally agree to the Potsdam requirements.

Your suggestion that invasion could have been avoided – without the bombs – is inaccurate, first because unconditional surrender was a baseline requirement, and second, because Russia had ALREADY decided to invade, and did so on August 9th.

There were only three choices: 1) invade, 2) use atomic bombs, or 3) do neither – and let Russia and China invade Japan for us … as they were already doing by August 9th.

There were no other options.

And if you think stepping aside and letting Russia and China invade would have been a more moral choice, you are truly in need of a history lesson. Rest assured the Japanese would not have chosen that route. It would have been horrific beyond anything you could imagine.

And that doesn’t even consider the possible global consequences during the next half century if Russia had taken Japan.

—————————————

And a final point that you’ve completely ignored: we’ve asked you repeatedly, if morality is the basis for you opinion (clearly historical fact isn’t) – how do morally allow the war in China and Russia to continue when you can stop it? How long do you let it go on? How long do you let it go on? How many dead Chinese civilians? How many dead Russians?

How long do we let the torture of Allied POW’s continue until it becomes a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to end the war?

What you seem not to know is that Japan was not sitting peacefully at that point; it was still in combat in Asia:

Japan’s forces were still at war against the Soviets and Chinese, so managing their cease-fire and surrender was difficult. The Soviet Union continued to fight until early September, taking the Kuril Islands.

Truman had three choices. He picked the right one. His choice was clearly the most moral and clearly caused the least suffering and death of his possible choices. Even if we pretend the Russians and Chinese wouldn’t have invaded (Russia already had), a slow blockade of Japan would have starved millions (and again, that ignore Allied deaths, Chinese and Russian deaths, and our own POWs).

In short, your latest statement – like every post you’ve offered – is based on a false premise.

Learn the history. Then try again.

Since you seem fond of Wikipedia, all of the above quotes came right from there. In fact, it’s a surprisingly good article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Surrender

Study it. Think. Then post. Opinions are fine, but base them on something approaching historical reality.

In fact, let me leave you by returning to your first statement in this thread – your claim that Hiroshima wasn’t a military target:

Why not drop it on a military target or display its power elsewhere (i.e. not on civilians)?
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 4:58 PM

I already explained that Hiroshima was arguably the quintessential remaining military target in Japan, but since you’re a big fan of Wikipedia, I’ll let them tell you:

As commander of the Second General Army, the headquarters of which had been in Hiroshima, Hata commanded all the troops defending southern Japan—the troops preparing to fight the “decisive battle”.

Military enough for you? Hiroshima wasn’t just any target – it was the headquarters for the very units that would have participated in defense against an invasion.

It was the perfect military target. The only one that really made sense, in fact.

Now read the article. Think for yourself. And before you post again, ask yourself if your opinion is founded in reality.

You can do it, kid. I’ve got faith in you.

Professor Blather on August 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM