no kidding!…

yes indeed……

You’re quibbling. What I have said in a previous post is that the population of Hiroshima was one eighth military. So, yes, Hiroshima was full of soldiers. If you go to Fayeteville, NC you will find it full of soldiers from Ft. Bragg. You’re trying to create a contradiction where none exists.

WillBarrett: “Here you seem to be implying that yes, we did intentionally kill civilians, but that they had been “militarized,” so that’s OK, they’re not really civllians. Do you actually believe that it’s OK to kill someone for what they might do? Would every woman and child have fought to the last? What about a small child? Would a five year old with a bamboo stick really be that much of a threat?”

Yes, that’s right. The entire civilian population had been militarized, was told to resist, and was expected to die for the Emperor: One Hundred Million Lives For The Emperor!

Yes, when Japan drafted the entire civilian population to fight the invasion, it seems reasonable to take them at their word. Nor did we need to speculate as to whether this policy would be supported by the non-military population. We’d already seen it fulfilled on Okinawa, and they weren’t even considered fully Japanese.

Yes, when attacking Japan we quite properly should kill combatants for what they might do. For example, the tens of thousands of Japanese troops in Hiroshima were quite correctly killed for what they might do to resist the invasion and kill Americans. Thousands of our troops would have been killed and wounded had we attempted to subdue them in conventional combat. Likewise, a civilian population that has been conscripted to be combatants make themselves legitimate targets. We shouldn’t wait on our attack in the hopes that they’ll just give up.

The Japanese were the aggressors in this war and should bear the risk of the war. It’s puzzling why you wish to place the risk of this war on everyone but the aggressors. The most moral outcome of a savage war of conquest which the Japanese waged is for its violence to be repaid tenfold upon Japan the aggressor. It’s immoral to argue that Japan’s victims should bleed to spare Japan.

The fact that Japan gave kindergarteners bayonet drill, gave them bamboo spears, and told them to fight the Allied invaders demonstrates rather vividly the depth of determination of the Japanese to fight on to the death. Such commitment argues against your assertion that the Japanese would have probably just given up without being forced by invasion.

WillBarrett: “Again, you and others on this thread keep attempting to diminish the simple fact that Hiroshima was a city. It was not solely a military base, and was chosen because it was an URBAN center that would cause PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS….as the quote above states.”

All combat is intended to have psychological effect: breaking the enemy’s will to fight. Hiroshima was no different from any other target in that regard. You can not expect to remain immune from the ill effects of a war you launched if you live next to a military installation, contribute to its support, and prepare to engage your enemy in combat. The Germans and Italian citizens did not take up arms against the Allies when we invaded and were spared accordingly. The Japanese took up arms and were not spared.

WillBarrett: “Even historians and scholars who think the bombs WERE justified acknowledge that we intentionally killed civilians. What more proof do you need? Is it because you are uncomfortable with the killing of civilians, and worry about the consequences of this logic (as I pointed out in my previous post): that we may always kill civilians in order to keep our casualties down?”

You’re using the term “civilians” in an ambiguous manner. Certainly, you can call the citizens of Hiroshima civilians because they were not in the military. On the other hand, if they are charged with resisting the Allied invaders, they’re really guerrillas, aren’t they?

Also, as I have pointed out before and you don’t address, dropping the atom bombs on Japan stopped the greater slaughter of civilians in Asia and Oceania. According to Wikipedia, the Japanese were killing 200,000 civilians per month in Asia. It’s curious that your concern for the killing of civilians is exclusive to Japan and does not extend beyond its coast.

WillBarrett: “Of course, the last part of your argument I alread addressed as well: How does a Japanese child in Nagasaki deserve to die because of the (horrendous) actions of a Japanese soldier in China?”

Japanese children were not the target of the atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki, as you imply, but rather its large munitions manufacturing complex. The Japanese can best protect their civilian population by not attacking other nations and slaughtering their civilians. Your argument leads to the impractical conclusion that no military assets may be targeted if Japanese civilians may be harmed. It’s immoral to shift the burden of risk of a war from the aggressors to their victims. The risk of war rightfully rests on the aggressors.

WillBarrett: “Furthermore, I am willing to bet that the “rate” you are talking about referred to an early time in the war (of course, you gave no source, so I’m not sure), and did not apply to the time period when the bombs were dropped. Thus, you would be dropping the bomb on people who hadn’t necessarily committed those horrible actions. Seems kind of unfair to me, how about you?”

The ten million figure I give is the lowest of all the death figures given for China. If you can find a lower one from a credible source, I’ll use that one. Once you get into millions of deaths, it’s hard to increase the immorality of such aggression. The immorality is pegged to the max.

It’s impossible to kill ten million people in combat. You can only kill defenseless civilians in such great numbers. The battles at the beginning of the war in China were only the introduction to the slaughter. It was the occupation which bled China.

The Japanese Kwantung Army occupied China for ten years with as many as 700,000 soldiers before the US entered the war. There were many Japanese who had served a two year tour in China and returned and got out of the army. As part of the in-country orientation, a new soldier was expected to kill a Chinese prisoner. There were plenty of them to go around. Each group of enlisted men bayonetted a single Chinese prisoner. Each officer blooded his samurai sword by beheading a Chinese. This went on for years, as soldiers came and went, cycling through, hundreds of thousands of them.

That was just one mechanism by which Chinese were killed. Of course, many of them were killed casually by Japanese troops, by their intelligence services, or by other Japanese.

And the Japanese were not going to go out quietly. When Japan was invaded, they had orders to execute all their prisoners. If not for the shock of the Bombs and a speedy surrender, the Japanese would have ended the war in China with a frenzy of slaughter, much like they did when chased out of Manila, leaving dead civilians all over the streets.

WillBarrett: “Here is a little statement by Dinesh D’souza … A quote from it: ‘The deeper question remains: is the targeting of civilians justified? Before we say yes, let’s remember what happened at 9/11. When civilians are killed with a view to terrorizing a population into capitulating to the killer’s demands, we call this terrorism. Isn’t this precisely what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?’”

No, Hiroshima/Nagasaki were not morally equivalent to Sep 11. If you recall, the Japanese launched a sneak attack on us at Pearl Harbor which started the war. They also attacked many other American territories like the Philippines, Guam, Alaska, Wake, Midway, etc. Those Americans they captured were treated brutally, tortured, executed, cannibalized, vivisected for medical practice, used as test subjects for weapons, and so on. That makes Japan the aggressor. Defeating the Japanese racist tyranny which had enslaved hundreds of millions was a noble and moral act. Dropping the atom bombs the most direct path to that victory over evil.

By contrast, the attack on Sep 11 was done for the most evil of causes, to propagate a religion, Islam. The innocent people aboard those airliners, in the World Trade Center, and in the Pentagon had done nothing to their Islamist aggressors but subscribe to a religion other than Islam.

The idea that both the US and Al Qaeda are morally equivalent “killers” is absurd on its face. The object of the US with respect to Hiroshima/Nagasaki was to end the killing. The object of Al Qaeda is to kill endlessly until all the world submits to Islam. The US immediately ceased the violence after the surrender and built Japan up into an economic superpower. Al Qaeda wants the non-Muslim world to be slaves to Muslims with no rights they are bound to respect, to steal their property, to make the infidel women their concubines, and to reduce all non-Muslims to dhimmis.

The Japanese and Al Qaeda are remarkably similar in their pathologies. Both extoll suicide missions and death. Both are fond of beheading their enemies and anyone who isn’t like them. Both envision a future where everyone else is their slaves. Both hate democracy. Both made the mistake of thinking America was weak.

WillBarrett: “Finally, as I have repeated earlier, I reject your contention that it was an “either/ or” scenario: invade or bomb. See the link in my previous post for more on that (read both parts, Tantor, if you are really interested in hearing all sides)….But even if I granted that it was, I still would have deep moral problems with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I think all good men of conscience should as well.”

General Marshall, the commanding general of the US military was convinced by the battle of Okinawa that an invasion was necessary:
“On July 14, 1945, General Marshall sadly informed the Combined Chiefs of Staff – he was not trying to scare the Japanese – that it’s “now clear. . . that in order to finish with the Japanese quickly, it will be necessary to invade the industrial heart of Japan.”"

WillBarrett, you are wedded to this speculation that the Japanese would have spontaneously surrendered. Could you show us anything the Japanese did that would lead you to believe that? A Japanese holdout fought on for nine months after the recapture of Corregidor. Another company-sized unit fought on for five months south of Manila. Another group of Japanese military stranded on an island refused to surrender for six years. The Japanese were still fighting on Iwo Jima four years after they surrendered, Indonesia 20 years later, 28 years later on Guam,
Second Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda fought on for 29 years in the Philippines. Captain Fumio Nakahira, held out for 35 years on Mindoro in the Philippines until finally surrendering in 1980. Ten thousand Japanese soldiers in Manchuria fought on after the surrender until 1948. Some Japanese in China never surrendered.

Now, I know of no other war where the defeated soldiers fought on after the surrender, certainly not for decades. Call me crazy, but that leads me to believe that these were not a people who easily surrendered. So it puzzles me how you came to the completely opposite conclusion, as if the Japanese were French or Italian who surrender at the drop of a hat.

There were many good men of conscience prepared to invade Japan to end its wicked reign of racist tyranny, guys like Paul Fussell, who thanked God for the atom bomb:

“The invasion was definitely on, as I know because I was to be in it.

“When the atom bomb ended the war, I was in the Forty-fifth Infantry Division, which had been through the European war so thoroughly that it had needed to be reconstituted two or three times. We were in a staging area near Rheims, ready to be shipped back across the United States for refresher training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and then sent on for final preparation in the Philippines.

“My division, like most of the ones transferred from Europe, was to take part in the invasion of Honshu. (The earlier landing on Kyushu was to be carried out by the 700,000 infantry already in the Pacific, those with whom James Jones has sympathized.)

“I was a twenty-one-year-old second lieutenant of infantry leading a rifle platoon. Although still officially fit for combat, in the German war I had already been wounded in the back and the leg badly enough to be adjudged, after the war, 40 percent disabled. But even if my leg buckled and I fell to the ground whenever I jumped out of the back of a truck, and even if the very idea of more combat made me breathe in gasps and shake all over, my condition was held to be adequate for the next act.

“When the atom bombs were dropped and news began to circulate that “Operation Olympic” would not, after all, be necessary, when we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault – firing while being machine–gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live. We were going to grow to adulthood after all. The killing was all going to be over, and peace was actually going to be the state of things.”

Well at least some of you are now admitting that you don’t care about being “just” or moral. Cool guys. Real cool.

WillBarrett

So … you advocate surrender? Or Pacifism until the jackboot is on your neck?

The enemy, then, and now, has no moral qualms. You can be Ghandi-like … they prefer victims who won’t fight back.

If you are in a war, you fight to win … you kill people, and break things. If civilians support the enemy, you may have to kill them. Enemy soldiers require munitions, rations, equipment, and recruits.

Guess where they come from? Civilians provide all of these things.

We won’t torture them … or execute the ones that surrender … but if they help our enemies, then they are legitimate targets, and may be killed.

WillBarrett on August 9, 2007 at 7:48 AM

You seem to be brandishing the terms “just” and “moral” around a lot. Please define these terms and the standards for their use.

My answer to your trolley argument… yell at the people to get out of the way. I’m sure you’ll point out that it doesn’t fit any of the predefined answers, and you’re right… it doesn’t. But this philosophical question presents a highly defined situation, with improbable answers, in order to justify a particular (perverted) worldview. It’s like rigging an experiment to obtain a desired result. It is intellectually dishonest.

You state that you believe that “murdering innocent civilians” is wrong. Fine, but realize that murder is not war… and that these civilians were trained militia and were not innocent from a military perspective. Since these facts are no longer in conflict with your original statement, does that mean that you will now consider rethinking your opinion of the bombing? Are you actively researching the history behind this? If not, then you are being intellectually dishonest in your postings.

war is hell.

you have to win.

otherwise you and yours are dead, slaves or worse.

nuff said.

C

What does just have to do with it? I call it playing to win. That’s a concept not often mentioned anymore.

AZ_Redneck on August 9, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Well at least some of you are now admitting that you don’t care about being “just” or moral. Cool guys. Real cool.

It’s been pointed out several times that Hiroshima was a military town full of soldiers

Here you are you arguing that it is a military town with few civilians.

Also, it’s been mentioned before that the entire civilian population of Japan had been militarized.

Here you seem to be implying that yes, we did intentionally kill civilians, but that they had been “militarized,” so that’s OK, they’re not really civllians. Do you actually believe that it’s OK to kill someone for what they might do? Would every woman and child have fought to the last? What about a small child? Would a five year old with a bamboo stick really be that much of a threat?

Again, you and others on this thread keep attempting to diminish the simple fact that Hiroshima was a city. It was not solely a military base, and was chosen because it was an URBAN center that would cause PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS….as the quote above states. Even historians and scholars who think the bombs WERE justified acknowledge that we intentionally killed civilians. What more proof do you need? Is it because you are uncomfortable with the killing of civilians, and worry about the consequences of this logic (as I pointed out in my previous post): that we may always kill civilians in order to keep our casualties down? Well, shoot, we might as well just move out of Baghdad and nuke it….We wouldn’t lose anymore soldiers, and who knows, maybe the terrorists would surrender?
Of course, the last part of your argument I alread addressed as well: How does a Japanese child in Nagasaki deserve to die because of the (horrendous) actions of a Japanese soldier in China? Furthermore, I am willing to bet that the “rate” you are talking about referred to an early time in the war (of course, you gave no source, so I’m not sure), and did not apply to the time period when the bombs were dropped. Thus, you would be dropping the bomb on people who hadn’t necessarily committed those horrible actions. Seems kind of unfair to me, how about you?
Here is a little statement by Dinesh D’souza (who has fallen out of favor in conservative circles because of his last book, but nevertheless I think we would all agree is a conservative) who makes many of the same points that I have attempted:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/08/06/hiroshima-and-the-morality-of-killing-civilians/
A quote from it:

The deeper question remains: is the targeting of civilians justified?
Before we say yes, let’s remember what happened at 9/11. When civilians are killed with a view to terrorizing a population into capitulating to the killer’s demands, we call this terrorism. Isn’t this precisely what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Moreover, the Allied bombings of Dresden and other German cities, with the clear purpose of causing massive deaths and fear among civilians, would also surely fall into the same category.

Interestingly, D’souza takes a position closer to my opponents on this thread, with one important caveat: he still acknowledges that what we did was evil (a lesser evil, though, perhaps).
Finally, as I have repeated earlier, I reject your contention that it was an “either/ or” scenario: invade or bomb. See the link in my previous post for more on that (read both parts, Tantor, if you are really interested in hearing all sides)….But even if I granted that it was, I still would have deep moral problems with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I think all good men of conscience should as well.

I don’t see where civilians were the target in your example nor in anything I’ve read. It’s been pointed out several times that Hiroshima was a military town full of soldiers. There were also considerable military stores on the bases and military production spread out through the civilian areas. If your neighborhood is full of homes where people are assembling ammunition and other military gear, you become a legitimate target for bombing.

Also, it’s been mentioned before that the entire civilian population of Japan had been militarized. Everyone was expected to resist the Allied invasion and to die as a result. What weapons were available had been distributed to the civilian population with instructions to use them, just as had been done in Okinawa. You can not make every man, woman, and child a combatant and at the same time demand they be protected from attack as civilians.

If you wanted to stop the killing of civilians, your area of concern would lie outside Japan in places like China where the Japanese had a policy of casually killing civilians, whom they considered “logs,” hardly human. The Chinese claim the Japanese killed 30 million Chinese during the war. However, if you accept the lowest figure of ten million Chinese killed given by some sources that means the Japanese were killing Chinese civilians at the rate of the population of Hiroshima every two weeks. When you argue for sparing a city of the Japanese aggressor, you are sacrificing many cities of their innocent Chinese victims. That is an inferior moral outcome which reasonable people should reject.

If the atom bomb was the more humane choice instead of ground invasion, well what does that say about humankind? Even though the current interpretation of the events at Hiroshima is far off, I still feel no love towards those that were in charge of the Manhattan Project.

I don’t know … 62 years and the Empire of the Rising Sun has not risen to again. I figure someone got the message and moved on to other things.

Clearly World War II was a just war, but I am not sure that all of our actions in the war were themselves just.

What does just have to do with it? I call it playing to win. That’s a concept not often mentioned anymore.

I will read your article, if you promise to read this one, both parts, by Doug Long:
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

I will fully grant to you that I am no expert on the Pacific Theater, or World War II in general, but your condescending, pompous put-downs really are too much. You are right, I am young (in Grad school, not undergraduate as you thought), but I am not stupid. Just because we disagree on a certain subject, it does not mean that I am “clueless.”

With regard to your main question: “How do you allow the war to continue if you can stop it?”

Well, again, it comes down to what one is willing to do in order to “stop” something. There is a famous thought experiment by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson, based on an earlier problem by Philippa Foot:

…a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem (Of course you would mock my use of wikipedia, but it is an excellent aggregate of information) Do you have a simple answer to this question? Really? But getting back:
First, I have attempted to argue that the scenario you and others continue to present of “either bombs or invasion” is disputed by many. You can call that “historically innacurate” all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that many scholars argue such (see the link I provided above). Of course, you will dismiss that as “revisionism.” Fine, but I will dismiss you as a partisan, who has already made his decision, and will not listen to the other side one iota.
But for the sake of argument, let me grant to you that it WAS an either/or scenario. Either we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima or we would have been forced to invade. At this point it is necessary to stipulate that I whole-heartedly reject your notion that Hiroshima was a “purely” military target. It’s almost like saying Denver is a military target because there are military bases in the surround area. According to the Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945:

(2) Hiroshima – This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

Also:

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released….Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed.

from http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
Thus, the high number of civilians in the area was clearly a factor in the military’s decision to use this as a target. But of course, others have attempted to diminish this fact by saying “well, they would’ve fought to the last” or “the Japanese were brutal,” so they deserved it. So now we get to the heart of it: You are OK with killing civilians, women and children. On one hand, there is an attempt to justify it by implying they are, in some sense, potential soldiers (the first quote marks), on the other, that a Japanese child should pay for the actions of a Japanese soldier (the second quote). But these points seem weak to me: to kill someone based on a potential future action, or to kill someone for the sins of their countrymen. So of course, this brings us to the main question, really: is it moral to kill civilians if it keeps the number of OUR deaths down? As Ramesh Ponnuru states:

…it would be an even bigger change [in our military practice], and a change in principle, if we were to intentionally target civilians whenever we thought that doing so would hold our military casualties down (or even hold the total number of civilian and military casualties down).

from http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200508150817.asp Thus, following your logic, Professor Blather, and others found on this site, we may indeed kill civilians as long as it backs our objective. That is the end point of your argument, since you have no principled moral qualm with killing civilians. Thus, it is of course not suprising that earlier posts have advocating nuking Damascus and Tehran and Mecca in order to win the War on Terror. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Are you not momentarily taken aback by the inability to separate soldiers from women and children? Or they but means to your end? You can dismiss this as “sophomoric” ranting, but I am deeply troubled by the flippant regard for human life in this thread, especially women and children who as far as I am concerned, are innocent (certainly an infant child is, Original Sin put aside). So, if I were in Truman’s position and the only options were invade or nuke (and as I have stated above, I am only granting this for the sake of argument, the article above disputes this…as does Ponnuru), I might seriously considering invading, because I have a principled objection to the wiping out of women or children with a bomb. You do not. Clearly. How can you and be consistent? And of course I am arguing from a Christian (Catholic) view point, because of a little thing called Natural Law. But that is a whole other subject, but it of course is the underlying basis for my (and no doubt Ponnuru’s, as he is a Catholic) argument. Philosophers and theologians have always distinguished between jus ad bellum and jus in bellum, that is, just reasons for going to war, and just ways of carrying on a war. Clearly World War II was a just war, but I am not sure that all of our actions in the war were themselves just.

Brilliant display of knowledge on the history of the war.
I find it troubling that you have repeatedly expressed facts and history and still have been degraded by the poster WB. He is running on emotions…not facts nor history. I have learned a great deal from your posts. I have read a great deal on the European side of WWII and there is still to this day facts emerging since the wall fell and time has passed. Even from our own country and other countries involved in WWII.
From what I have read I have absolutely no doubt Russia would have engaged in war with us if we had invaded Japan.
The war would have continued and more blood shed. To sit and wait as a poster suggested would have been foolish.
Stalin had hoped for ‘friendly fire’ occuring when they took Berlin. We wisely stayed clear and the Allies had decided to let Russia reach Berlin.
As far as the dropping of the bombs. It was terrible and tragic..but the war needed to end. Period. End.

However, I agree with Bryan’s commentary on other options. Did we have any at that point? What risks were there if Truman didn’t respond as he did? Horrible as it was, it does seem to have been the “least bad option” Truman had.

Practically, Truman had no choice but to drop the atom bombs to finish the war as soon as possible. Morally, Truman had an obligation to drop the atom bombs to spare American lives. Politically, Truman had to drop the atom bombs. Had he stuffed the atom bombs in a warehouse to collect dust while an invasion progressed that incurred a hundred thousand casualties and then revealed to America we had a weapon that would have made those casualties unnecessary, an enraged America would have impeached him and thrown everyone involved in that decision in prison.

That’s right, Will, we would have had to invade Japan without the Bomb. Their military believed that they could bleed us enough in the invasion to surrender on their terms, which included more than the retention of the Emperor but the retention of the existing order in Japan. The atomic bombings did not change the Japanese military’s position. Without occupying Japan, the militaristic tyranny which ran it would have regrouped and forced us to refight the same war a generation later, just like not occupying Germany after WWI allowed Germany a second effort in WWII.

WillBarrett: “But a quick check at a number of websites, such as wikipedia, illustrates that many of the military commanders of the time did not think INVASION was necessary.”

As I’ve pointed out before, these opinions were based on service rivalries. The Navy believed an invasion was unnecessary if they blockaded Japan. The Air Force believed strategic bombing alone could bring Japan to surrender without an invasion.

The services feuded throughout the Pacific War. Nimitz thought he could win the Pacific with just the Navy fighting fleet to fleet. MacArthur thought the Army could win the Pacific by island-hopping in 250 mile steps determined by the limit of air cover. In the end, Roosevelt couldn’t or wouldn’t decide the issue in either service’s favor, but had them proceed on parallel lines of attack. The dispute over the end game in Japan is a continuation of this running rivalry.

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

MacArthur realized that it wasn’t worth the extra cost in American lives to remove the Japanese god emperor and it would make it more difficult to rule occupied Japan without his symbolic authority. While retaining the Emperor was the core demand of the surrender negotiation, the advisors in Hirohito’s court explicitly state that the atom bombings are what decided the surrender question. Had we killed the Emperor or sent him in hiding, we would have had not only the invasion to fight but years of guerrilla warfare in the cities and mountains. MacArthur realized that to avoid that bloodshed we would have to let the Emperor stay in place as a figurehead.

The atom bombings allowed the Emperor to save face by citing it as a new and horrible weapon that Japan could not resist. Hirohito’s surrender speech: “Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.”

Hirohito cites the atom bomb as his primary reason for capitulation. The destruction wrought by the atom bombs was not significantly different from the earlier conventional bombing of Japan. The only significant difference was that one B-29 with an atom bomb could do the damage that 220 B-29s could do, and did, in mass raids with conventional bombs. We could have bombed them either way. However, the shock of the new weapon gave Hirohito a face-saving pretext to end the war. Like he said, he wasn’t just saving Japan, he was saving human civilization. That was nice of him.

The public reason Hirohito gave for surrendering trumps the private speculation of the Allied commanders as to what was necessary for the Japanese to surrender. Hirohito was the central figure whose will to fight we had to break. It took the atom bombs to break his will.

When you have no good options, and Truman had no good options, you take the least bad option. I think that’s what he did.

By choosing a course that put an end to the Americans’ losses, defeated one inimical nation, and helped to contain another one, it seems Truman chose a good option.

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.

Tantor on August 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM

We can keep going in circles if you’d like….I’m not even sure why I’m getting back into this, but as I’ve already explained: Your entire argument rests on the belief that we would HAD to have invaded Japan if we didn’t bomb them. I will readily admit to you that you may know more on the subject than I do. But a quick check at a number of websites, such as wikipedia, illustrates that many of the military commanders of the time did not think INVASION was necessary. MacArthur, for example, believed that if we allowed the Emperor to keep his title, he would’ve surrendered. You can dismiss this all as “revisionism,” but it’s hard to take that seriously when many of those present in the military disagreed with Truman’s decision. Thus, if the invasion was not necessary, your entire argument falls apart. Finally, here’s Ramesh Ponnuru bringing up (far more eloquently) some of the points that I have tried to, and applying them to the War on Terror. I think you all could use reading this: http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200508150817.asp
Will

As I have pointed out earlier, the atom bombings were the most moral course because they economized the loss of life. Waging exclusively a conventional war, as you seem to suggest, would have led to deaths on an order of magnitude greater than the atom bombings. That makes it a morally inferior choice. Opposing the Bomb is not moral but moralistic posturing.

Winning was everything for the Chinese being killed at the rate of the population of Hiroshima every two weeks. It was everything for the prisoners of the Japanese for whom a standing order had been given to kill them at news of the invasion of Japan. It was everything for the veterans of the European campaign who had miraculously survived and who knew being sent on another campaign in Japan was probably a death sentence. At best, they’d probably be sent home grievously wounded like most of the combat troops in France where units suffered 200% casualties.

When you are fighting a racist tyranny like Hirohito’s Japan, there is no substitute for victory. There are no half-measures that succeed in defeating evil.

and realize you were criticizing the wrong guy.

Bradky on August 7, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Here let me break it down for you. As you say you can’t trust someone that has a slew of errors…can you trust someone who doesn’t remember what they post. Your posts come back to haunt you.
7:12 detail post from Tantor
7:32 your post and challenge
7:43 answer from Tantor
7:43 another challenge by you
7:51 Tantor answers
7:54 challenge by bradky “waiting for answer”
8:07 tantor answers
8:20 ditto
8:22 ditto
8:46 fully answers
you never acknoledge that he answered your challenge.

You would think with you “Asian studies” and academic background you would be able to read and understand Tantor’s excellent posts.
What he taught you in a couple of hours is worth your degree (or whatever) in Asian studies. His insights and references, along with his obvious study of this area of the war, was spot on.

What amazes me, is when someone like you challenges someone else to facts. Then when they go to the trouble of stating the facts, citing references, people like you just blow it off. It was a courtesy to respond to your nasty posts. A little “thank you” for them responding to your insulting “I’m still waiting”, when all you will do is take the information, cast it aside, and move on to the next argument. He answered your posts (and others) academically, with references, and I know your answer is “You just can’t take their word”, well then don’t ask for their word. Why would you ask for something that is of no value to you?

This was a gift to you (as well as the rest of us), take it graciously, don’t take offense that someone is better educated than you on this subject. It does not demean your education or intellect to realize someone else has a better understanding and grasp of an area of history than you. Like I said, it is a gift to you, not an attack.