Ship of Fools: Hiroshima Nagasaki Seventieth Anniversary

Thread: Hiroshima Nagasaki Seventieth Anniversary Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029262

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Was the dropping of the two bombs justified at the time?

Did the bombs in fact play any part in the Japanese surrender?

Given the possibility at the time that they might have, was it acceptable to calculate that the deaths of tens of thousands of mainly women, children and old people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was preferable to millions of Allied and Japanese deaths had the war continued?

Was it just a signal to Stalin?

Were they dropped out of an insatiable curiosity as to whether or not they would work, after all the money and effort put into them?

Should the Americans have warned the Japanese of their possession of nuclear weapons, and then demonstrated their effect by exploding one in an unpopulated area of Japan or its environs?

Is it possible by an act of historical imagination to immerse ourselves in the attitudes of 1945, such as the feelings of the loved ones of Allied soldiers fighting the Japanese, or of POWs or atrocity victims in Japanese-controlled areas?

Is it possible to discuss this issue without wallowing in self-righteous anti-Americanism?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

1) Yes, the Japanese High Command and Cabinet had stopped listening to reason. It was Fat Man/Little Boy or Operation Downfall.

2) A large part, if historical accounts from the Japanese side are to be believed.

3) The widescale slaughter of civilians had been practiced by all sides since 1942 and the bombing campaign in Europe (for the Allies).

4) Probably, but there were strategic considerations as well.

5) That level of communication and coordination had long ceased to exist between Washington and Tokyo. As an invitation, it would have been dismissed by the Japanese. That is not the way statecraft is done.

6) HBO's "The Pacific" did a decent job of illustrating the "race war" side of the Pacific War, which had been neglected.

If you want to know the scale of what was imagined in Operation Downfall, the US purchase of Purple Hearts for this campaign supplied all Purple Hearts through Korea, Vietnam and the first and second Gulf Wars. Only recently has the US Armed Forces ordered new medals.

There are recorded instances of US soldiers coming across their own gravestones, pre-engraved, after the Japanese Surrender in US army depots.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

140,000 killed in Hiroshima. Deutsche Welle had an interview of a woman who was a school girl in a class of 50, one of two in her class who lived after the bomb.

This kind of thing of course is completely justifed in war. The point is to kill the enemy and to kill their will to continue. If killing their children does that, then they must be killed in whatever numbers may be possible and preferably in ways to cause maximum destruction and horror.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

A Japanese Canadian historian (post-doctoral) told me that he had researched the situation fairly thoroughly in choosing his doctoral thesis topic, and had come up with the conclusion that more Japanese would have died in an invasion than were killed by the bombs. He told me that he was very disturbed by this conclusion, but he could not escape the logic of his estimates.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I think that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, occuring as it did almost simultaneously with the bombs, was also a strong factor.

In less than a fortnight the Soviets overran Manchuria and were in Korea. A two-pronged attack could come within days from both Korea and the northern islands, backed by the massive Soviet naval base a stone's throw away.

The Soviets demonstrated in the European theatre that they were willing and able to suffer enormous casualties and that they were extremely brutal conquerors. Moreover, they were itchinng for a rematch of their humiliating defeat in a prior conflict.

Had the Soviets invaded, the only questions would have been how much, if anything, would escape destruction and how many people, if any, would ultimately survive.

Unlike the U.S., the Soviets would not have been bothered by an enemy willing to fight to the last person, even if that happens to include nearly an entire civilian polulation.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I'm even close to thinking that had the bombs not been dropped, the Japanese would still have soon surrendered given the incredible success of the Russian invasion.

The only hope for the Japanese would have been to surrender to the U.S. in the rather narrow window before the Soviets commenced their invasion of Japan.

I think that the Japanese could have endured quite a bit more bombing, conventional and/or nuclear, but the Soviets were at the doorstep and they had reached it with frightening speed and efficiency.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Those are rhetorical questions, why are you asking them? We all know the answers. For decades I argued yes to the first. My God was the God of The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Exodus. God the Killer. Except as Jesus, so true Christians had to be pacifist, but that was a purist, elitist position and America WAS God's own country along with the other lost Israelites of north west Europe and if you can't be a true Christian you have to be pragmatic, just like God, when dealing with the demonic gentile hordes.

Finally thanks to postmodernist Brian McLaren, the scales of the irrelevant God, the tribal God, the pragmatic God of redemptive violence, the human God, the idol of Christianity in the very main fell away.

So no, Ayn Rand - "When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are." - writ large was wrong. We were not justified. Except in Christ.

Something Andrew, Justin and George and their apologists have forgotten. Well, not that they've ever known.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

No, I do not think the dropping of the bombs was justified. At the time it represented the pinnacle of "the machine", and once again it was used in an evil way: the means justify the end.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
140,000 killed in Hiroshima. Deutsche Welle had an interview of a woman who was a school girl in a class of 50, one of two in her class who lived after the bomb.

This kind of thing of course is completely justifed in war. The point is to kill the enemy and to kill their will to continue. If killing their children does that, then they must be killed in whatever numbers may be possible and preferably in ways to cause maximum destruction and horror.

I find this a very potent point. I'm used to people pressing pacifism to test if it has limits: would you really not use force in this hypothetical situation?

But I see that it works the other way: are there not limits to the nature of the war you would wage?

Most of us get uncomfortable at some point in the calculation of suffering. There are factors beyond mere consequences.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

At least one Roman Catholic understands.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Kaplan:

quote:

Was the dropping of the two bombs justified at the time?

No. You probably could try and make a case that the bombing of Hiroshima was, but to then say Nagasaki was also justified so soon after would need more than a few acrobatics to argue efficiently.

quote:

Did the bombs in fact play any part in the Japanese surrender?

For everyone involved except Marshall, no. Military records make it very clear that from Eisenhower down, everyone thought Japan was on the verge of surrender which would come within a time frame of a week to a month. This is what they thought - you can of course argue that their thinking was flawed. Meanwhile in Japan the tables were beginning to turn on the Emperor and the military. The population seems to have been living off one small bowl of rice per household per week with everything else being pumped into the war effort. Public opinion was also shifting dramatically against the war and there was a dawning realisation that they were being held to ransom on the international stage by a lunatic emperor and a brutalised war machine that didn't appear to have a shred of humanity left.

quote:

Given the possibility at the time that they might have, was it acceptable to calculate that the deaths of tens of thousands of mainly women, children and old people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was preferable to millions of Allied and Japanese deaths had the war continued?

Certainly the most difficult question to answer, but it must be asked; why drop a second one? Why choose two sites with little or no military significance? Why target the bombs on largely civilian areas? There are just too many questions to answer, at least for me. It's too big a 'what if'. The biggest question of all is why they went ahead with it when the military records indicate that shortly beforehand they all seemed convinced that the Japanese were perched on the verge of surrender (in fact if I remember correctly they had already indicated terms of surrender involving the preservation of the imperial system)? Maybe it was that Marshall fellow......

quote:

Was it just a signal to Stalin?

....yep, I think that was pretty much part of Marshall's argument.

quote:

Were they dropped out of an insatiable curiosity as to whether or not they would work, after all the money and effort put into them?

I think Trinity indicated fairly clearly they would work efficiently.

quote:

Should the Americans have warned the Japanese of their possession of nuclear weapons, and then demonstrated their effect by exploding one in an unpopulated area of Japan or its environs?

This comes back to the question of whether surrender was imminent regardless of whether the bomb dropped or not. The Japanese 'war cabinet' certainly seems to have known it was about to happen and they issue no warning. Afterwards they don't even report the bombing of Hiroshima to the public. There are so many questions as to why it went down this way. Were the Japanese hoping for world outrage? Were they simply in complete and utter disarray? Did they give up, thinking they were all going to be obliterated? Was the emperor just a lunatic and the Imperial general a psychotic who hoped to take everyone and everything down with them? I often feel that last one is a distinct possibility and I've never understood why they weren't taken out.

quote:

Is it possible by an act of historical imagination to immerse ourselves in the attitudes of 1945, such as the feelings of the loved ones of Allied soldiers fighting the Japanese, or of POWs or atrocity victims in Japanese-controlled areas?

Would you really want to? If you had loved ones in the war or prisoners of war of course you would want to see the Japanese Imperial army laid waste. No secret was ever made of their horrific brutality. They had demonstrated that clearly in the past too. When the bombs dropped and killed so many civilians and caused so much destruction who knew what to think. I'm not sure we've even come to terms with it today and that may be why the west constantly looks for a justification for doing it.

quote:

Is it possible to discuss this issue without wallowing in self-righteous anti-Americanism?

Yes; unless of course coming to the conclusion that they were wrong to drop both bombs is reasoned to be anti-American.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Most of us get uncomfortable at some point in the calculation of suffering. There are factors beyond mere consequences.

Probably the reason East and West refrained from incinerating each other with a combined nuclear arsenal capable of killing every person on the planet 4 times over.

When you have *war with limits* you have war. No doubt why humanity is forever dogged by it.

The unusual thing about the nuclear strike on Japan in 45 was that became that rare occasion when a single military action actually achieved it's objective at a stroke.
Had Japan opted not to surrender and been totally destroyed? America's action would then have been judged as being rather more barbaric than using 2 controversial weapons to end a truly bitter and awful war.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I recently found science historian Alex Wellerstein's blog, which tackles many of these questions: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/

Many of those involved in developing the first nuclear bombs become vocal advocates of nuclear disarmament. That's pretty telling to me.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Kaplan:

quote:

Did the bombs in fact play any part in the Japanese surrender?

For everyone involved except Marshall, no. Military records make it very clear that from Eisenhower down, everyone thought Japan was on the verge of surrender which would come within a time frame of a week to a month. This is what they thought - you can of course argue that their thinking was flawed.

The bombs definitely played a part in the Japanese decision to surrender. It wasn't up to the Americans. In his speech to the Japanese people, the Emperor mentioned the bombs specifically.

Moo

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Sorry, I meant that was the thinking before the bombs were dropped, except Marshall.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Excellent questions. Historical/theoretical questions that should be asked in order that we might answer them better should (when) we ever be in a position to ask them in a practical sense again.

There are people much better versed in history than I answering them from the historical record. Thank you all for that fascinating information.

I think it is a bit unfair to look at records of what the Japanese people were thinking at the time. After all, the US had precious little information about what the Japanese people were thinking. Should the US have had better intelligence? Of course.

Face it, the US was an insular society in many ways then. The people in power didn't know a lot about anyone other than the lily white with european ancestry. They hired Margaret Mead to tell them about our enemies and allies because they didn't have the foggiest. (Interestingly enough, Margaret herself didn't seem to have a clue about African American attitudes. Just read.)

So, you have a people who knew that the Japanese attacked them without a reason other than hostility (from regular citizens point of view) and who seemed to be buddies with that Hitler guy. They fought heroically from their point of view and beyond reason from the point of view of Americans who were losing family and friends.

What do you expect from a group of people who only knew the Japanese as enemies? And yes, military types are people too. How many of "those people" should die to keep "Our Boys" alive?

Is war ever justified is beyond my pay grade. How people react in times of war is very human and imperfect.

I say that you can never cure hate with hate. And I have no idea how I would react if a strange (to me) group of people started threatening my family. My guess is my reaction would be less then the pinnacle of perfection and love.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Another point to note is that 24 hrs after Hiroshama the Japanese High Command still had it,s face set on the no surrender policy. It saw the first Bomb as a propaganda opportunity, kicking a man when he,s down (likewise Dresden).

So many of us viewed the second Bomb as merciless, yet the interval was crucial in making the Japanese leadership realise further resistance was utterly useless. It was shock and awe that worked.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Mass murder - atomic bombs cannot be justified on just war grounds, which do not allow for the direct killing of civilians.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.

By convincing the Japanese military that they could not continue fighting, the atomic bombs saved Japan from the far worse horrors of an allied invasion - millions would have died.

If the Russians had beaten us to it and conquered Japan, Japan would probably have ceased to exist.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.

By convincing the Japanese military that they could not continue fighting, the atomic bombs saved Japan from the far worse horrors of an allied invasion - millions would have died.

If the Russians had beaten us to it and conquered Japan, Japan would probably have ceased to exist.

That's a rationalism, namely, the means justifies the end.

Posted by Edwina Moon (# 18454) on :

According to historian William Manchester, Truman appointed two committees, one comprised of soldiers and civilians and the other of scientists, to explore alternatives to operational use of the bombs. The committees rejected both a detailed warning and a demonstration as infeasible: The static test at Los Alamos still left lots of technical unknowns about the effectiveness of dropping a bomb from the air and it was feared that a declaration followed by a dud would stiffen Japanese resistance. Also, aside from the static apparatus detonated at Los Alamos, the Americans only had two bombs.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.

But still goes against Just War principles.

if utilitarianism is the sole judge, then the church may as well shut up and the Christian faith is of no relevance.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... Certainly the most difficult question to answer, but it must be asked; why drop a second one? Why choose two sites with little or no military significance? Why target the bombs on largely civilian areas? ...

To see what would happen.

According to at least one documentary, among the factors in the selection of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the fact that neither city had been attacked or damaged with conventional weapons.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Tortuf:

quote:

I think it is a bit unfair to look at records of what the Japanese people were thinking at the time. After all, the US had precious little information about what the Japanese people were thinking. Should the US have had better intelligence? Of course.

I'm not sure they were that ignorant of all the facts and I doubt they had 'precious little information'. I may be wrong in this, but I do recall reading that they were aware of the Japanese war office canvassing of public opinion of the war on behalf of the emperor. They did know of the attempts by the Japanese to plead a peace treaty via the Soviet Union to the US. There are also unfounded rumour that they had approached the Swiss. Now publicly they (the Japanese) were saying different to their citizens, but the US knew of this and knew the terms for surrender which in actual fact is what they later granted all being said (i.e., the retention of the imperial system). They were also aware of the plight of the citizens and an entire population on the verge of mass starvation. It is for these reasons, and many others, that so many of the leading figures in the US army of the time (Eisenhower, Leahy, MacArthur, McCloy to name but a few) felt that Potsdam was part of the exercise of humiliation (i.e.. not offering the retention of the emperor as part of the peace deal and referring to it in terms of a deceitful veiling of the truth from the people...or some such), that the surrender was immanent (or would have taken place had the terms been offered regarding the emperor) and the dropping of the bombs should not have gone ahead as it did.

Ernest King is an interesting case in point. He claimed that the intelligence he had received once the naval blockade was in place in 1945 (before the bombing) was that Japan was effectively defeated. After the bombing he declared it to be immoral, as Japan was utterly helpless. He was commander in chief of the US Fleet and chief of Naval operations.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Fletcher Christian said:

quote:
Was the emperor just a lunatic and the Imperial general a psychotic who hoped to take everyone and everything down with them? I often feel that last one is a distinct possibility and I've never understood why they weren't taken out.

i can at least answer this one-- Hirohito actually forced the surrender in defiance of the JHC. Given Hirohito was actively cooperating in the termination of the war ( finally), he was too valuable to take out. If I remember correctly, the JHC was dissolved very soon after the way and its leaders were subject to various reprocussions assigned by Hirohito for their attempted coup.
As to the Bomb-- for the first time on Thursday, I heard the "bombs for peace" argument on NPR, and the person explaining it said something like this-- the strategeists who supported the bomb drop decided that " something Biblical"-- that is, a demonstration of a weapon that could wipe out a populated city and every living thing in its strike zone-- would not just end this war, but end War. They deliberately planned a drop in a densely populated area because they hoped the world-- not just Japan-- would recoil at the high stakes created by this new weaponry, and that the nations would just kind of collectively decide war wasn't worth it.

On the one hand-- that is clearly the thinking of very desperate minds. On the other hand, as cockamamie as it sounds, at least the proponents of this idea were aiming for some larger good.
All I can state with conviction is that I wish it didn't happen, that God forbid it happen again, and that as an American, every time Yom Kippur rolls around, I pray on this matter.

[ 08. August 2015, 16:15: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Was it only an American decision though? I know, obviously, it was the US that dropped it, but was it not discussed with others? My knowledge of this is sketchy at best; but did Churchill, Russia and China not also know of the intention to drop the bomb or were they asked for any kind of input or opinion?

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.
But still goes against Just War principles.

if utilitarianism is the sole judge, then the church may as well shut up and the Christian faith is of no relevance.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that all the bombing campaigns in WW2 went against Just War principles? I agree that's arguable.

I think the US in WW2 Actually did pretty well when measured against Just War principles, certainly better than the Japanese. Their magnanimous treatment of defeated enemies places them above most victorious powers in history, especially considering that they were forced into a war they didn't want.

All war is hell. The best we can do is end it as quickly as possible, and take what steps we can to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Non-combatant casualties are inevitable. All combatants should attempt to minimise them, obviously. I am attempting to argue that the atomic bombs causing tens of thousands of casualties prevented the millions of casualties that would have resulted from an allied invasion. (This is counter-factual, but the planning estimates were that high, with allied service deaths in the hundreds of thousands.) So in this case, yes I think the end did justify the means. It doesn't in all cases.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.

True at the time. But the Tokyo firebombing didn't claim lives for years after, nor cause genetic defects.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.
True at the time. But the Tokyo firebombing didn't claim lives for years after, nor cause genetic defects.

I wouldn't disagree with that. At the time the long-term effects of radiation exposure were not well enough known to have any bearing on the decision to use the atomic bombs. (Radiation precautions at the Manhattan Project labs were certainly not up to modern standards).

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was it only an American decision though? I know, obviously, it was the US that dropped it, but was it not discussed with others? My knowledge of this is sketchy at best; but did Churchill, Russia and China not also know of the intention to drop the bomb or were they asked for any kind of input or opinion?

I leave it to the people in those countries to decide what to do for Yom Kippur.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was it only an American decision though? I know, obviously, it was the US that dropped it, but was it not discussed with others? My knowledge of this is sketchy at best; but did Churchill, Russia and China not also know of the intention to drop the bomb or were they asked for any kind of input or opinion?
I leave it to the people in those countries to decide what to do for Yom Kippur.

AIUI Churchill knew of the bomb's existence and was informed that it would be used (British scientists were involved in the Manhattan Project). Stalin knew about the bomb because of the penetration of the Manhattan Project by Soviet agents, but was not officially informed or consulted.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.
True at the time. But the Tokyo firebombing didn't claim lives for years after, nor cause genetic defects.
I wouldn't disagree with that. At the time the long-term effects of radiation exposure were not well enough known to have any bearing on the decision to use the atomic bombs. (Radiation precautions at the Manhattan Project labs were certainly not up to modern standards).

There is still a difference. Firebombing is an ancient method of warfare. Yes, the delivery method was more effective in WWII, but the technology not so much. The atomic bombs represented a massive change. The potential for which should have at least been on the minds of the creators and users. I do not think Oppenheimer's own quote:

quote:
I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds.

was at all accidental or naive.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

There is still a difference. Firebombing is an ancient method of warfare. Yes, the delivery method was more effective in WWII, but the technology not so much. The atomic bombs represented a massive change. The potential for which should have at least been on the minds of the creators and users. I do not think Oppenheimer's own quote:

quote:
I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds.
was at all accidental or naive.

Sorry, I don't think you can compare a volley of flaming arrows or even a Napoleonic battery of cannon with hundreds of B-29's each unloading 10 tons of high explosive and incendiaries on a civilian population housed in fragile Japanese buildings. The technology of killing advanced very rapidly in the 20th century, at the time the atom bomb must just have seemed like the logical next step. As a civilian (and one with - to the authorities - suspect loyalties) any reservations Oppenheimer had about about his creation would have been of no importance in wartime.

His supposed words at the Trinity test (there are different versions of them) always strike me as rather ambiguous. He was - at least partly - exulting that the thing actually worked, which was by no means certain.

[code]

[ 08. August 2015, 19:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
More civilians died in the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo, so the death toll from the atomic bombs was not uniquely terrible.

By convincing the Japanese military that they could not continue fighting, the atomic bombs saved Japan from the far worse horrors of an allied invasion - millions would have died.

If the Russians had beaten us to it and conquered Japan, Japan would probably have ceased to exist.
That's a rationalism, namely, the means justifies the end.

Which is not to say that either the rationalization or the end to which the means have been advanced are actually wrong, materially or morally. Presumably God gave us the capacity to operate as rational people for a reason.

Whether the reasoning was right or wrong, however, will always be debateable. It's unthinkable that God could've provided humanity with its rational faculties to the end that fellow human beings could be annihilated in this way. But on the other hand, he also permitted us the double-edged sword of freewill, and living in a world where evil has his permission to run riot.

Seems like Catch 22 to me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Response to Touchsone
Actually, I was speaking of Greek fire.
But dropping bombs or incendiaries from aeroplanes is just a simple multiplication of force. A ballista is not a different technology to a simple bow and arrow or sling. Just use of a mechanical means to gain greater force.
The biggest conventional bomb I am aware of has a yield of 44 tonnes of TNT. Fat Man and Little Boy had a yield of 21 and 15 kilotonnes.(respectively) But it is the reason for this immensely greater yield that is the issue. It is to a conventional bomb what a rock is to a bunker buster.

[ 08. August 2015, 19:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

There were multiple conventional raids on Tokyo, with hundreds of B29s dropping a total tonnage of 1 - 2 Kilotonnes on each occasion. without doing a detailed calculation, we can infer that the total explosive power deployed against Tokyo was approximately equivalent to that deployed against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes, nukes are horrible, but so are incendiaries. The standard US incendiary bomb would release about thirty bomblets as it fell, each of these was capable of penetrating a building before squirting out a jet of burning napalm. These abominations were dropped by the thousand.

As far as I know Greek fire, whatever it may have been was a tactical weapon never used strategically against enemy cities.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You are missing the point.
But whatever.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are missing the point.
But whatever.

Sorry, what is the point? I think we're trying to establish whether nuclear bombs are so uniquely evil that it would be wrong ever to use them.

I do not believe they are necessarily any more evil than other machines that kill people. I also believe that their use in this instance was - on balance - justified.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Can we really say that stopping the bombs was right or wrong depending on whether or not they shortened the war? It's hard to tell if they did even with hindsight, looking back at WW2 from not so long after, with the enormous amount of information and historical analysis that has been done. It wasn't possible to know the result of dropping the bombs at the time with any certainty, so if the rightness if dropping them was a matter of the consequences, it couldn't be known at the time.

If we judge the action by its intention instead, then the A bombs can ge judged whatever the consequences. Conventional bombing in WW2 became largely directed against civilians in Germany and Japan. It started out, though, against industrial and military targets. If you attack railway lines you might claim it's an acceptable use of force. If some bombs go astray and some civilians are killed you might say that's acceptable. If you bomb a manufacturing district civilian damages will be huge, but you might still claim there is a military purpose and feel justified.

There is a continuity between bombing the industrial district and just dumping HE anywhere on a city. Perhaps the intention in Tokyo and Dresden was to create firestorms and maximum civilian deaths, but I doubt the aircrews knew that.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was different in that it was a new weapon, and there was no question of mission creep. There was a clear intention to kill civilians and no one could doubt it.

If you think deliberately killing innocent people is wrong, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong, because of the intention and never mind the result.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian
...but I do recall reading that they were aware of the Japanese war office canvassing of public opinion of the war on behalf of the emperor.

I have never heard of the Japanese war office canvassing public opinion. The war minister had the right to make all decisions affecting the war. The war minister had to be an army officer on active duty, and if the top army men didn't like his decisions, they could make him resign by taking him off the active duty list.

The idea of canvassing Japanese public opinion startles me. In the spring of 1945, only a few months before the end of the war, several hundred civilians were arrested by the secret police, "on suspicion of harboring a desire for peace."

Moo

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Can we really say that stopping the bombs was right or wrong depending on whether or not they shortened the war? It's hard to tell if they did even with hindsight, looking back at WW2 from not so long after, with the enormous amount of information and historical analysis that has been done. It wasn't possible to know the result of dropping the bombs at the time with any certainty, so if the rightness if dropping them was a matter of the consequences, it couldn't be known at the time.

If we judge the action by its intention instead, then the A bombs can ge judged whatever the consequences. Conventional bombing in WW2 became largely directed against civilians in Germany and Japan. It started out, though, against industrial and military targets. If you attack railway lines you might claim it's an acceptable use of force. If some bombs go astray and some civilians are killed you might say that's acceptable. If you bomb a manufacturing district civilian damages will be huge, but you might still claim there is a military purpose and feel justified.

There is a continuity between bombing the industrial district and just dumping HE anywhere on a city. Perhaps the intention in Tokyo and Dresden was to create firestorms and maximum civilian deaths, but I doubt the aircrews knew that.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was different in that it was a new weapon, and there was no question of mission creep. There was a clear intention to kill civilians and no one could doubt it.

If you think deliberately killing innocent people is wrong, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong, because of the intention and never mind the result.

The purpose of strategic bombing is to degrade an enemy's economy and reduce its ability to fight. It targets industrial plant that is concerned with war production - in practice this is a large category, e.g. the US suffered heavy losses bombing ball-bearing factories in Schweinfurt.

Early experience of attempting to precision-bomb "legitimate" targets was hopelessly ineffective - bombs fell miles away from their targets. This lead the RAF, USAF and Luftwaffe to develop "area bombing" whereby entire districts containing war-production plants would be devastated. Civilians were not deliberately targeted but the inaccurate bombing methods of the day made heavy loss of life inevitable.

Applying the same methods to Japan came up against the same problems, indeed the dispersion of Japanese industry into many small and medium-sized concerns spread throughout "civilian" areas meant that the price of attacking Japanese war production was even higher levels of non-combatant casualties.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets according to the strategic doctrine of the time - both were centres of industry and were major ports. They also had substantial military garrisons.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Was it only an American decision though? I know, obviously, it was the US that dropped it, but was it not discussed with others? My knowledge of this is sketchy at best; but did Churchill, Russia and China not also know of the intention to drop the bomb or were they asked for any kind of input or opinion?

The US did not consult anyone. Stalin was officially in the dark, and unofficially not to be asked for his input.

The British nuclear effort "Tube Alloys" had been systematically excluded from the higher-end nuclear research that led to a practical weapon.

Further, the US saw the Pacific theatre as a US theatre of war, period. The British and Australian contingents were very much under US operational control. When Japan was occupied, MacArthur was declared "Supreme Commander of Allied Powers" over an undivided Japan, and ran it as a US show.

The Pacific was not Europe.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If the point is to kill the enemy, to stop its war-making, then we must not be naive. Killing civilians by whatever means, if it stops the enemy, is okay. The beast is indeed unleashed.

If this means Turks crucify Greeks in Anatolia and mutilate the corpses by slicing open their bellies or stuffing their genitals into their mouths in 1920, or Americans shooting everyone over 10 in the Philippines in 1900, or napalm bombing multiple villages in 1972, it is all justifiable. Justifiable as either accomplishing the ends desired or hopefully doing so. War is the justifiable violation of every rule and law to a greater end. These great ends are always worth it. After Blenheim made it obvious 200 years ago*. These things are always worth it.

* the correct name of Southy's poem.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
the strategeists who supported the bomb drop decided that " something Biblical"-- that is, a demonstration of a weapon that could wipe out a populated city and every living thing in its strike zone-- would not just end this war, but end War. They deliberately planned a drop in a densely populated area because they hoped the world-- not just Japan-- would recoil at the high stakes created by this new weaponry, and that the nations would just kind of collectively decide war wasn't worth it.

Well, if nations behaved rationally...

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are missing the point.
But whatever.
Sorry, what is the point? I think we're trying to establish whether nuclear bombs are so uniquely evil that it would be wrong ever to use them. ...

Would you prefer "orders of magnitude more evil" instead?

It would be impractical / impossible to completely destroy human civilization on the planet by conventional means. It is possible for us to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons. Billions die instantly, and electromagnetic pulses, lingering radiation and climate change would take care of the remainder. To quote one of my favourite nuclear submarine movies, "In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself."
Crimson Tide

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Has anyone one else here read the book "Snake Dances" by Patrick Marnham? (There's a film too but I haven't seen it).

In it, he makes at least five broad points.

1. The amount of work carried out in the Manhattan Project gave it a scientific momentum which made it virtually impossible for the bombs not to be used.

2. Many senior US political figures were effectively kept in the dark by the military and sidelined in the decision-making process, under the guise of secrecy.

3. Targets were not chosen for military reasons but with regard to the potential effectiveness of the bomb. The "first choice" for the second bomb had been Kyoto but this was over-ruled because of its cultural heritage rather than for strategic reasons. (Out of interest,this article has just appeared on the BBC's website).

4. The second (plutonium) bomb was primarily dropped to investigate the difference in effect between the two devices.

5. The Americans had expected Japan to sue for peace immediately after the first bomb. When that didn't happen, they went ahead with the second. What they hadn't reckoned with was the sheer difficulties in communication the Japanese were having in gathering information on what had happened at Hiroshima and in making any political response.

I am usually highly suspicious of conspiracy theories but this book - although rambling and a bit odd in some of the allusions it makes - does seem to add up.

Incidentally, C.P. Snow's "The New Men" is a fictionalised account (written in the late 50s I think) of the view from the scientific community on this side of the Atlantic. One character - the narrator's brother - gets into atomic research early on because that was where the high-end scientific action was taking place. When he ultimately realises the consequences of his work he not only writes a letter to the "Times" but gets out of the job. As a result his career effectively finishes.

Snow was a high-up Whitehall official so I guess that his information is pretty accurate.

[ 09. August 2015, 07:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Moo:

quote:

I have never heard of the Japanese war office canvassing public opinion.

February of 1945 by a specially appointed group of politicians, political thinkers and army, which was thought to lead to the first known peace pleadings in June. Only Konoe Fumimaro told the emperor what he didn't want to hear. It wasn't only public opinion included though.

I guess later there was a greater concern regarding possible coup d'état's

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
February of 1945 by a specially appointed group of politicians, political thinkers and army, which was thought to lead to the first known peace pleadings in June. Only Konoe Fumimaro told the emperor what he didn't want to hear. It wasn't only public opinion included though.

Can you give me a source for that?

Moo

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

When you have an entire country like ,Japan or Germany, that has devoted it,s entire self to a war of conquest, I never really understand why we automatically consider the civilians of such a country to be "innocent" any more than it,s military personnel.

Civilians work in factories, civillians produce infants who will be conditioned to become warlike, thus producing continuation of war similar to what we see today in never ending Mid-East conflicts.
Coming back to Japan in August 45, civillians were being trained to throw themselves under U.S. tanks whilst holding explosives in the event of a land invasion.

The rapid and desicive end to the war, horrible though it was, did Japan as much of a favour as it did the rest of the world. As for it being an action to 'End all war' ? H,mm, where have we heard that before.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Moo:

quote:

Can you give me a source for that?

Hiroshima In History And Memory, Michael Hogan.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Moo:

quote:

Can you give me a source for that?

Hiroshima In History And Memory, Michael Hogan.

Can you be more specific? Google books shows 11 instances of the word "opinion" in that book, none of which refers to a survey of public opinion in Japan in 1945.

There is this on p. 86 ("Japan's Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation", H.P.Bix):

quote:
In February 1945, before Japan's cities had been reduced to rubble, the emperor canvassed the opinions of his seven "senior statesmen" concerning the war outlook. [...] The meetings, though interrupted by air raids, revealed a general consensus to go on with the war.

There's a passage about Konoe's private audience with the Emperor arguing for a surrender to forestall a communist revolution, but I don't see anything about surveying public opinion.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

The rapid and desicive end to the war, horrible though it was, did Japan as much of a favour as it did the rest of the world.

ouch. While I understand your point and have heard the argument before, it sounds way too much like those in the US that argue that ultimately "slavery was a good thing for Africans..."

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Moo:

quote:

I have never heard of the Japanese war office canvassing public opinion.

February of 1945 by a specially appointed group of politicians, political thinkers and army, which was thought to lead to the first known peace pleadings in June. Only Konoe Fumimaro told the emperor what he didn't want to hear. It wasn't only public opinion included though.

I guess later there was a greater concern regarding possible coup d'état's

Ah yes, this old canard. The Soviets treated the peace overture as little more than a farce, as did the Americans who read it through codebreaking. Konoye's position was contradicted by the hardliners in Tokyo and the eventual surrender very nearly did not happen because elements of the Japanese Army revolted and ried to supress it, and very nearly succeeded. Which, I should add, was not the first time this had happened.

As for the contention that Japan got what she demanded, this must be balanced against the military occupation of Japan and Japan's disarmament, the complete rewrite of the Japanese constitution and the withdrawal of the Emperor from anything looking like politics.

The Americans got everything they wanted too.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ouch. While I understand your point and have heard the argument before, it sounds way too much like those in the US that argue that ultimately "slavery was a good thing for Africans..."

Fair comment. It did pinch me too after I'd printed it.

Despite things I posted on this subject there is no escaping the fact that using atomic bombs over heavily populated areas was a hideous action as well as a huge gamble.

If the 20th Century taught us anything, it must be the lesson of just how hideous and ultimately stupid full-scale war is. Whilst we still seem incapable of ever stopping Little Wars, it does sometimes seem that rather than Oppenheimer being the 'destroyer of worlds' his invention might, just might, have saved this one.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Moo:

quote:

Can you give me a source for that?

Hiroshima In History And Memory, Michael Hogan.
Can you be more specific? Google books shows 11 instances of the word "opinion" in that book, none of which refers to a survey of public opinion in Japan in 1945.

There is this on p. 86 ("Japan's Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation", H.P.Bix):

quote:
In February 1945, before Japan's cities had been reduced to rubble, the emperor canvassed the opinions of his seven "senior statesmen" concerning the war outlook. [...] The meetings, though interrupted by air raids, revealed a general consensus to go on with the war.
There's a passage about Konoe's private audience with the Emperor arguing for a surrender to forestall a communist revolution, but I don't see anything about surveying public opinion.

My understanding is that Japanese civilians were not allowed to have an opinion about the matter. The JHC was doing stuff like stopping people on the street and forcing them to stomp on chalk drawings of Churchill and Truman. Unpatriotic anti-war opinions were not tolerated. Under those circumstances, it's pretty hard to state with certainty what Japanese public opinion actually was.

If Keiji Nakazawa's Graphic novel roman a clef Barefoot Gen is any indication, people in Japan were just as eager for the heads of nations to stop dragging them around in war as people in every other nation was-- even more so, maybe, because they sensed their army was not as unfailingly victorious as they were being told. But speaking up about the war was dangerous-- Nakazawa recounts the story of a young kamikaze pilot sobbing and getting plowed on saki in a tea house just before his flight. When asked why he didn't just turn down the commission, he pretty much said, "They'll go after my family, duh."

I mean, war protesters in the US were treated like shit, but at least it was legal.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Everything I have read about how the Japanese made decisions about the war says that the war minister had veto power in the Cabinet, and the top Army generals had veto power over the war minister.

The only person who could overrule the war minister and the top generals was the emperor.

When it was announced that Hirohito planned to make a speech, some army officers attempted to kidnap him so the war could go on. Fortunately, their attempt failed.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

One important factor affecting Japanese public opinion was that right up to the end, the government news kept telling people that Japan was winning. Many of them believed it.

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many of them believed it.

I question this. Why would the JHC apply stringent methods of quashing any hint of protest if there wasn't something to worry about?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

All of which justified killing a city. Meh.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many of them believed it.

I question this. Why would the JHC apply stringent methods of quashing any hint of protest if there wasn't something to worry about?

To make sure that there would be nothing to worry about.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many of them believed it.

I question this. Why would the JHC apply stringent methods of quashing any hint of protest if there wasn't something to worry about?

I said 'many'. I suspect the protesters amounted to less than ten percent of the population.

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many of them believed it.

I question this. Why would the JHC apply stringent methods of quashing any hint of protest if there wasn't something to worry about?
To make sure that there would be nothing to worry about.

Exactly.

Like I said, all I am going on is one survivor's memories (and research-- the book I referenced is actually well researched, and contains historical background to inform the story) but according to him, civilians at the time of the bomb drop were just keeping their heads down and hoping the war would end soon.

They were being told that American were seeking to invade Japan and rape/ kill everyone, that loss of focus on this "fact" cost Japanese lives, and that anyone who (say) missed a civil defense drill was a public enemy worthy of public harassment. It was about as easy for a resident of Tokyo to be a dissident as it was for a resident of Berlin to avoid joining the Nazi party.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
All of which justified killing a city. Meh.

Your preferred alternative being what, exactly? A full invasion of Japan, with every inch of advance being paid for in blood by both sides?

Which is better - tens of thousands of deaths from one bomb, or tens of millions of deaths from a protracted and vicious war? "Neither" isn't an option.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

A thousand times as many casualties if only conventional weapons are used? Doesn't seem likely.

And there are always options. If there was a naval blockade, why not wait and contain?

But in the end there is no morality in comparing suffering. It is in the action that morality lies, and in standing for something. Some things, like torture or indiscriminate killing, stop you from standing for anything good, so they can never be justified, not because they are so terrible in themselves, but because whoever chooses them ceases to be involved in morality.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If there was a naval blockade, why not wait and contain?

The military men who ran the show said that it was better for the entire Japanese population, civilian and military, to die than to surrender.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
All of which justified killing a city. Meh.
Your preferred alternative being what, exactly? A full invasion of Japan, with every inch of advance being paid for in blood by both sides?

Which is better - tens of thousands of deaths from one bomb, or tens of millions of deaths from a protracted and vicious war? "Neither" isn't an option.

This post casts the issue with a false dichotomy of either kill 250,000 civilians or have a protracted invasion with larger numbers of dead soldiers than children and non-soldiers. You do not know that killing cities or a protracted invasion were the only choices. The Japanese conduct of the war and treatment of conqueres people is insufficient reason for the bombing of these cities, and so is estimates/guesstimates of soldier deaths if invasion was the decision. A good question is whether unconditional surrender as an American war aim is reasonable. A negotiated surrender would have not resulted the same number of soldier deaths. It is unreasonable to equate civilian noncombant deaths with soldiers. It is also contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

The root causes of the Pacific war notwithstanding, which involve Japanese and American competition for dominance dating back several decades.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
A negotiated surrender would have not resulted the same number of soldier deaths.

Japan insisted that it would not surrender unless it was allowed to continue to occupy the European colonies it had invaded. Japan would set them free at the right time. Meanwhile, people in these countries were dying of disease and starvation at the rate of about 100,000 per month.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Thus a negotiated surrender, with relief of those colonies a position which would have formed part of the response. Negotiation means there is change to positions.

That these were colonies is notable, and in Japan's neighbourhood. As if the European powers had the right to occupy them. Neither side wanted them to be independent. This underscores the economic side of this war.

[ 11. August 2015, 01:21: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The United States had long committed to a final peace, not a negotiated armistice, and Japan would have to be occupied. Japan, for its part had a schizophrenic High Command riven with militarists with their own factions whose only common element was that they would not surrender.

The Pacific War, more than the European war was a meatgrinder, an infantryman's war. It was not based on manoeuvre but on logistics and slaughter. Even the Eastern Front had thrusts, pockets and salient where armies were cut off and surrendered, while the Pacific War was carnage and logistics.

It was the Eastern Front without the tanks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thus a negotiated surrender, with relief of those colonies a position which would have formed part of the response. Negotiation means there is change to positions.

What makes you think the Japanese would have negotiated a surrender? Every scrap of evidence presented on this thread tells against this.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

A willing surrender is a strange concept, when you think about it. Doesn't every country refuse to surrender until it is compelled?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This post casts the issue with a false dichotomy of either kill 250,000 civilians or have a protracted invasion with larger numbers of dead soldiers than children and non-soldiers.

Not at all - it's historically attested to that in the event of a full invasion all Japanese people - including children and non-soldiers - would have been expected to fight against the invaders.

quote:
You do not know that killing cities or a protracted invasion were the only choices.

Given the mindset of the majority of the Japanese leaders, it's a reasonable conclusion. It's certainly the one the Allies came to at the time.

quote:
The Japanese conduct of the war and treatment of conqueres people is insufficient reason for the bombing of these cities, and so is estimates/guesstimates of soldier deaths if invasion was the decision. A good question is whether unconditional surrender as an American war aim is reasonable. A negotiated surrender would have not resulted the same number of soldier deaths.

There's no reason to suppose that a negotiated surrender would even have been possible. Do you have any evidence that it would have been?

quote:
It is unreasonable to equate civilian noncombant deaths with soldiers.

When the soldiers in question are conscripts I don't see it as unreasonable at all.

quote:
The root causes of the Pacific war notwithstanding, which involve Japanese and American competition for dominance dating back several decades.

It doesn't really matter what the root causes of the conflict were.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If there was a naval blockade, why not wait and contain?
The military men who ran the show said that it was better for the entire Japanese population, civilian and military, to die than to surrender.

Moo

The mass suicide of civilians during the invasion of Okinawa shows this. That accounted for between a third and a half of the civilian population, men, women and children.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

Can anyone recommend a good book that explains how Japan got into the position it was in during WWII as regards to total obedience to the Emperor and death before surrender including for civilians?

I'm interested in understanding how/why the Japanese leadership got into a position where (arguably) only an atom bomb could make them give in.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thus a negotiated surrender, with relief of those colonies a position which would have formed part of the response. Negotiation means there is change to positions.

Japan offered to surrender if certain non-negotiable conditions were agreed to. One was continued control of the colonies, which I have already mentioned. The other two were that no foreign soldier set foot on Japanese soil, and that the army would continue its role in government. Since the army had started and carried on the war, there is no way that America would agree to this.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Can anyone recommend a good book that explains how Japan got into the position it was in during WWII as regards to total obedience to the Emperor and death before surrender including for civilians?

I would welcome such a book also. I have read a book, Yokohama Burning, which argues that the severe destabilization caused by the 1923 earthquake thoroughly demoralized people and made it much easier for the militaristic hotheads to take over. That's not the whole story, of course.

What I really want is a concise history of Japan from 1800 to 1930. Unfortunately, I can't find one.

Moo

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Can anyone recommend a good book that explains how Japan got into the position it was in during WWII as regards to total obedience to the Emperor and death before surrender including for civilians?

I can't recommend a good book, but the Wikipedia page on Bushido gives a certain amount of insight into the culture of the country at that time.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Moo:

quote:

What I really want is a concise history of Japan from 1800 to 1930. Unfortunately, I can't find one.

The Mason and Caiger History of Japan is quite good, if a little dry in places. Section 5 deals with your dates.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Moo:

quote:

What I really want is a concise history of Japan from 1800 to 1930. Unfortunately, I can't find one.

The Mason and Caiger History of Japan is quite good, if a little dry in places. Section 5 deals with your dates.

Still no sign of the 1945 Japanese public opinion survey?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Ffs, you really can be a pain in the ass. Seeing you have google flu and an aversion to reading books other than key words and contents/index pages, I'll give you a few other hints. There was once upon a time a thing called the Japanese Home Office - go read about what it did during the Pacific Wars. Then there were two important media outlets; important to the Emperor and the army for reasons you can read about. One was called Bungeishunju and the other was called Mainichi.

Now, bugger off and take your pissing contest to someone else's wall.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Now, bugger off and take your pissing contest to someone else's wall.

Kindly take yours to Hell.

/hosting

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Moo:

quote:

What I really want is a concise history of Japan from 1800 to 1930. Unfortunately, I can't find one.

The Mason and Caiger History of Japan is quite good, if a little dry in places. Section 5 deals with your dates.

------------------
At the risk of starting another pissing contest, I think I've read that one. It's a good chapter but not long enough to do the detail.

[Edited to try to make the quotes look right but I can't...]

[ 11. August 2015, 16:38: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

For the avoidance of doubt, it's the personal insults that belong in Hell.

/hosting

Posted by PeteB (# 2357) on :

Rolyn said:

quote:
When you have an entire country like ,Japan or Germany, that has devoted it,s entire self to a war of conquest, I never really understand why we automatically consider the civilians of such a country to be "innocent" any more than it,s military personnel.

At the start of the war, or strictly just beforehand, it was believed that bombing civilians was illegal. Chamberlain (who of course started WW2 by declaring war on Germany) told the House of Commons it was 'against international law to bomb civilians as such and to make deliberate attacks on the civilian population'.

And both Britain and Germany avoided bombing civilians until an accidental bombing by German aircraft of houses in London lead to retaliatory bombing of Berlin, which lead to the Blitz, the Battle of Britain and, eventually, to Hiroshima.

Perhaps an important lesson from this is that if truth is the first victim of war respect for law and human decency is the second.

BBC - British Bombing Strategy in World War Two

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteB:
And both Britain and Germany avoided bombing civilians until an accidental bombing by German aircraft of houses in London lead to retaliatory bombing of Berlin, which lead to the Blitz, the Battle of Britain

The Battle of Britain AIUI was the Luftwaffe's attempt to gain air superiority over the skies of Britain so as to clear the way for a late Summer land invasion. It failed.

The frustrated Fuhrer, not realising the the extent to which RAF had been weakened, made a tactical blunder by ordering his bombers to bludgeon the British people into submission. That also failed.

Morality is indeed a luxury in war. Something Germany seemed keen to cast aside when lobbing bombs out of Zeppelins onto cilvillians in WW1.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The basic immorality is using bombs in situaitons which will certainly result in significant civilian deaths. After that, it is purely a matter of degree (although, as was once said, being a statistic is not always an agreeable experience).

Whether or not it was in conventional firestorm or atomic one might not matter to the burned corpse, aside from the latter being faster than the former.

I referred above to my Japanese Canadian historian acquaintance who reluctantly came to the conclusion that the bomb saved Japanese lives over a conventional invasion. The propaganda machine had been very effective at convincing the Japanese that the vilest of fates awaited them. Note how this drove hundreds of civilians in Saipan to suicide when US troops arrived.

I have read a few things (in translation) written during WWII by Japanese authors and poets, as well as by veterans, and their accounts create for us an atmosphere where one wonders if there was a syndrome or hysteria taking over. I think that I would join other shipmates in wishing that a negotiated peace were possible, but I do not think that there is any evidence which supports that possibility. Indeed, if Hirohito had not (for once) done his job, Japan might not have even surrendered after Nagasaki, and would have suffered both bombs and an invasion.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

There are a few salient facts about Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan that never happened, other than the aforementioned civilian casualties on Okinawa.

1) X-Day (October, 1945, the invasion of Kyushu and Y-Day (the invasion of Tokyo) would make D-Day look puny by comparison. X-Day would have seen landings by 13 infantry divisions, more than twice the force at D-Day. The entire US Navy and a large part of the Royal Navy would have been in attendance.

2) The Allies managed to carry off D-Day with a significant amount of surprise which proved to be a tactical advantage. Interviews with Japanese staff officers in 1946 showed there would be no surprise for X-Day. The size of the invasion force necessitated that every landing beach on Kyushu would have been used, and the Japanese had mapped these and dug in accordingly. Ditto with the Kanto Plain around Tokyo.

3) American planners thought the Japanese had 5,00 serviceable aircraft, while the true number was 13,000. Again, with no surprise and an easy way to locate the amphibious shipping, the result would have been bloody, even if the landing force was not turned back.

4) There was no nice manoeuvre in the Pacific, aside from island-hopping, which was past its prime. It was a pure frontal infantry assault with a few tanks for support, rather like WWI.

US planners estimated at least 500,000 to 1 million us casualties, 2 million on the Japanese side. And that was being optimistic given the size of the forces involved and the casualty rates already experienced in late Pacific War.

Degrees and niceties had gone by the board, it was an all-in fight to the death, and the Americans lasted the longest.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

I'm not sure if "syndrome" or "hysteria" are quite apt, but it does seem that some attitudes were widespread which most Americans would have found difficult to understand. The New Yorker magazine now has the entire text of John Hersey's Hiroshima online; one of the survivors he profiled (Reverend Mr. Kiyoshi Tanimoto, pastor of the Hiroshima Methodist Church) related these stories of some residents:

quote:
“Dr. Y. Hiraiwa, professor of Hiroshima University of Literature and Science, and one of my church members, was buried by the bomb under the two storied house with his son, a student of Tokyo University. Both of them could not move an inch under tremendously heavy pressure. And the house already caught fire. His son said, ‘Father, we can do nothing except make our mind up to consecrate our lives for the country. Let us give Banzai to our Emperor.’ Then the father followed after his son, ‘Tenno-heika, Banzai, Banzai, Banzai!’ In the result, Dr Hiraiwa said, ‘Strange to say, I felt calm and bright and peaceful spirit in my heart, when I chanted Banzai to Tenno.’ Afterward his son got out and digged down and pulled out his father and thus they were saved. In thinking of their experience of that time Dr. Hiraiwa repeated, ‘What a fortunate that we are Japanese! It was my first time I ever tasted such a beautiful spirit when I decided to die for our Emperor.’

“Miss Kayoko Nobutoki, a student of girl’s high school, Hiroshima Jazabuin, and a daughter of my church member, was taking rest with her friends beside the heavy fence of the Buddhist Temple. At the moment the atomic bomb was dropped, the fence fell upon them. They could not move a bit under such a heavy fence and then smoke entered into even a crack and choked their breath. One of the girls begun to sing Kimi ga yo, national anthem, and others followed in chorus and died. Meanwhile one of them found a crack and struggled hard to get out. When she was taken in the Red Cross Hospital she told how her friends died, tracing back in her memory to singing in chorus our national anthem. They were just 13 years old.

“Yes, people of Hiroshima died manly in the atomic bombing, believing that it was for Emperor’s sake.”

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Moo:

quote:

What I really want is a concise history of Japan from 1800 to 1930. Unfortunately, I can't find one.

The Mason and Caiger History of Japan is quite good, if a little dry in places. Section 5 deals with your dates.
Still no sign of the 1945 Japanese public opinion survey?

Not a survey, but evidence of a quite active anti-war movement, and what the JHC did in response:

quote:
The JCP opposed the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria whilst there was large support in Japan for the invasion. Following the Manchurian Incident, the JCP and its affiliated organizations conducted 262 anti-war actions, mostly leaflet distributions, in 1931, between September 18 and October 31. the JCP made efforts to organize within the army, distributing "The Soldier's Friend", a monthly magazine. The Army Ministry recorded that anti-military actions rose yearly from 1,055 in 1929 to a peak of 2,437 in 1932. In response, in October 1932, the government launched a wave of arrests of suspected Communists. Louise Strong described the actions of the JCP following the Manchurian Incident as the "Swan Song" of the JCP as an organized movement. The new wave of political repression destroyed the movement. It is reported that anti-war actions were dropping off to 1,694 in 1933 and 597 in 1934. [23] [24] [25]

Source: Wikipedia page on the Japanese Communist party
Follow the links imbedded in that article and you come up with this doozy.

quote:
By using the highly vague and subjective term kokutai, the law attempted to blend politics and ethics, but the result was that any political opposition could be branded as “altering the kokutai”. Thus the government had carte blanche to outlaw any form of dissent.

Under those circumstances, even if someone took a public opinion poll about anti-war sentiment in 1945, how the hell could the results be anything near reliable? Anti-war sentiment was pretty much outlawed.

( I figure I am preaching to the choir, DaveW, but it needs to be said.)

I have gotten to the point where I can accept that there are good, rational people who could see no other recourse at the time than dropping the bomb. What I can't countenance is this frankly dehumanizing view of the Japanese people as brainwashed shells waiting to be told their opinion of the war. My reading of first person accounts (primary and dictated) indicates to me that the only people really benefitting from the war were the military and various local officials. The privation and destruction in the Japanese colonies was happening in large parts of the mainland, too.The average person on the streets vacillated between being terrified at the increasing brutality --mainland, local brutality--of their own government and the threats they had been given about what the US would do if they reached mainland Japan.

Yes, people committed suicide in droves after the surrender, but it was because they were convinced all that awaited them in the future was torture and massacre. Quite frankly, this is almost exactly what my grandmother said would have most assuredly have happened in the US if we had not begun interring Japanese citizens. Without debating that action, or the validity of her apprehension-- both the US and Japanese governments were telling their respective populace the same thing. Just something to think about.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Perhaps our comments crossed, Kelly, but the quotes from Hersey's book suggest that the range of public attitudes wasn't limited to fear of the government and fear of the Americans. Just because a government is repressive doesn't mean people don't support it; a smattering of leaflet distributions doesn't sound like a very active anti-war movement to me. I also think we should be wary of projecting our own attitudes toward suicide and surrender on a culture that honors the actions of the Forty-Seven Ronin. (It occurs to me that, from the traditional Japanese view, Lee's behavior at Appomattox would have been appalling.)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yes, our comments did cross, and fair point.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Was the dropping of the two bombs justified at the time?

Is it possible by an act of historical imagination to immerse ourselves in the attitudes of 1945, such as the feelings of the loved ones of Allied soldiers fighting the Japanese, or of POWs or atrocity victims in Japanese-controlled areas?

My own first generation American father and his five brothers, raised together in an orphanage, were in that war. Three joined the army and were sent to Europe and my father fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Three joined the Navy and were sent to the Pacific. One Christmas, when we were all together, (all the brothers miraculously survived the war) a cousin started preaching about the evils of the bombs dropped on Japan and these hardened men who had survived orphanage and war, who had lost dear friends and had all suffered injuries (my father was half crippled, my uncle almost deaf), explained that they were here together because of that bomb, and as the war dragged on in the bowels of those ships they knew that few would survive an invasion against an enemy that had shown itself to be ruthless. They raised a glass to the fallen, thanked God they were still together (a Catholic lot they were) and not a single word was ever uttered about the subject again.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

My parents were both convinced that the bombs shortened the war by about 2 years and was thus justified.

I sometimes wondered whether you had to believe that to live with the knowledge. And of course, they had lived with (and in my fathers case, fought in) the war from being teenagers to adulthood. The overwhelming feeling must just have been relief it was over.

M.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Morality is indeed a luxury in war. Something Germany seemed keen to cast aside when lobbing bombs out of Zeppelins onto cilvillians in WW1.

Indeed. And the German Navy bombarded British coastal towns in WWI, causing significant civilian casualties. The only military justification was that they were trying to lure Royal Navy ships into a trap.

[code]

[ 12. August 2015, 07:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
My parents were both convinced that the bombs shortened the war by about 2 years and was thus justified.

I sometimes wondered whether you had to believe that to live with the knowledge.

The atomic bomb was very horrible, but the conventional warfare which preceded it was also horrible. AIUI more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died at Hiroshima.

War is hell, and I'm not sure the atomic bomb is more hellish than conventional warfare.

Moo

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

War is hell, and I'm not sure the atomic bomb is more hellish than conventional warfare.

Moo

Having served in an atomic weapon equipped service (the RN), it's something I did have to think about. Overall, I think I got to a point where I agree with what you wrote in the context of WW2, simply because there was a small and finite number of weapons (2, basically) in the hands of one of the belligerants, which were relatively low yield and though they did an awful lot of damage, it was incredibly localised.

On the other hand, when we get into the era of massive retaliation/MAD it becomes much less true simply because you will kill everything on earth several times over. That was never the case with conventional warfare. Basically even those in the services (IME) tended to keep their fingers crossed it wouldn't ever happen. I would go as far though as to say that I do believe MAD kept the peace in a bipolar world (ie during the Cold War).

To an extent that was because both blocs were headed by essentially rational state actors. No comfort for those who got caught up in the all the displacement/proxy conflicts though obviously.

Whether that will hold true in a proliferation/multi-polar world is a different matter.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain that if the missiles ever were to fly it would certainly be more hellish than conventional warfare.

I'm minded of the two great attempts to visualise post-nuclear conflict society: The Day After (US), and the IMO much more honest Threads (UK). IIRC a US reviewer famously said that Threads "makes The Day After look like A Day at the Races."

It's on youtube, but I certainly wouldn't recommend watching it if you're not in the market for nightmares.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
My parents were both convinced that the bombs shortened the war by about 2 years and was thus justified.

I sometimes wondered whether you had to believe that to live with the knowledge.
The atomic bomb was very horrible, but the conventional warfare which preceded it was also horrible. AIUI more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died at Hiroshima.

War is hell, and I'm not sure the atomic bomb is more hellish than conventional warfare.

Moo

One difference being perhaps that the deadly impact of an atomic bomb can extend to at least the next generation, whereas the effects of conventional warfare are experienced only by the current residents of the embattled nation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One difference being perhaps that the deadly impact of an atomic bomb can extend to at least the next generation, whereas the effects of conventional warfare are experienced only by the current residents of the embattled nation.

Which is not strictly true. There is some evidence of health effects in people who were born within a few months of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and in the more heavily contaminated parts of the Ukraine and Russia following Chernobyl. But these are not "deadly" health effects - although do require some medical intervention and would be debilitating without medical assistance. Some of these health effects may also be attributable to non-radiation effects of the bombs - the stress of losing home, family, friends, being put in temporary housing with inadequate food and water supplies - which would also have had an impact on those affected by conventional mass murder through firebombing and the like. And, so far, there is no evidence of any health impacts on subsequent generations.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One difference being perhaps that the deadly impact of an atomic bomb can extend to at least the next generation, whereas the effects of conventional warfare are experienced only by the current residents of the embattled nation.

You've forgotten about unexploded ordnance, which continues to blight the lives of millions around the world who live in former conflict zones.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Morality is indeed a luxury in war.

Scary as hell that people believe this.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... Certainly the most difficult question to answer, but it must be asked; why drop a second one? Why choose two sites with little or no military significance? Why target the bombs on largely civilian areas? ...
To see what would happen.

According to at least one documentary, among the factors in the selection of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the fact that neither city had been attacked or damaged with conventional weapons.

Nagasaki wasn't the primary target for the second raid; Kokura (site of one of Japan's largest munitions plants) was.

link

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

That is true jbohn, but all cities on the list were chosen because they had not been the subject of intensive bombing raids beforehand. In effect, the bombings were serving as an extension of the laboratory to show the capabilities of atomic weaponry in general and of the different types of bombs prepared.

Of course that was not their prime objective, which was to bring the war to a rapid conclusion and without the need for an invasion. They were successful in that aim. Moo has pointed out the very limited vision of the Japanese High Command, and its inability to see the inevitable conclusion of an invasion.

By August 1945, the need to rely upon the bombs had been borne out. An interesting hypothetical question we might ask is whether this scenario could have been avoided had MacArthur adopted a modified strategy. His campaign of island hopping had been very effective in capturing territory at minimal risk. Each new island taken gave a further protected forward base for planes and ships. That much is not in doubt. What would have happened had MacArthur combined this strategy with one of a submarine blockade of the main Japanese islands as early as (say) March 1943. The victories at Coral Sea followed by Milne Bay and Midway had given the Allies much greater security in the South-West Pacific. That at Midway went further and gave the US dominance in naval warfare. It's not going too far to say that after Midway the ultimate defeat of Japan was inevitable*. Had a strong blockade of Japan itself followed that battle, the flow of food and such raw materials as coal and oil would have been severely impeded and economic collapse may well have followed quickly.

The initial focus had been on waters further from Japan, and there is no doubting the great successes achieved there. For a long time though there was much less impact on supplies making the short journey from China to Japan proper .

MacArthur came to recognise this in early 1945, and the aerial mining of the waters around Japan had a rapid effect. By June 1945, virtually no oil was getting through - IIRC the last shipment was a convoy of fewer than a dozen cargo ships loaded with barrels of oil in Singapore, and which managed somehow to evade all search parties. What would have happened had there been early mining close in of the major Japanese shipping lanes with or without strong submarine is unknown,

*Had the Japanese High Command recognised this, they could probably then have obtained peace terms leaving Japan in control of much of the conquered territory.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

If there had been a successful blockade, all available goods would have gone to the military, even if civilians starved.

Moo

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

No doubt about that at all, but it would not have taken long to run out of even military supplies.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Which I suppose leaves the interesting moral question, is it better to slowly starve someone to death or to kill them instantly with a very big bomb?

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which I suppose leaves the interesting moral question, is it better to slowly starve someone to death or to kill them instantly with a very big bomb?

Were I the person on the receiving end I should infinitely prefer to be killed instantly.

If I was being irreverant I would cite 2 Samuel 24:13-15 as the basis for my answer but frankly I'd just rather it were over quick.

Of course that doesn't mean those in Japan in 1945 would have made the same choice, poor blighters.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which I suppose leaves the interesting moral question, is it better to slowly starve someone to death or to kill them instantly with a very big bomb?

Instead, they got to experience both! lucky devils.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The Japanese public would not have been the only one's facing starvation had the war continued. Let us not forget their wonderfully looked after POWs.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The Japanese public would not have been the only one's facing starvation had the war continued. Let us not forget their wonderfully looked after POWs.

And the civilians in the occupied countries.

Moo

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Thanks rolyn and Moo: I was beginning to wonder whether anyone actually remembered what went before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Post-war Japan has done an excellent job of making the rest of the world feel guilty about dropping the bombs while avoiding any meaningful acceptance of their part in some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.

The worst thing is we even help them with some of it referring, as we do, to the Far East theatre of WWII being 1941 to 1945, conveniently relabelling a huge chunk of it the Second Sino-Chinese War - and for the most part leaving Manchuria out of the picture altogether.

And at the end of the war we allowed ourselves to be bullied by the Americans into soft-pedalling on the pursuit of bringing war crimes indictments against 99.9% of those responsible for some of the ghastliest atrocities perpetrated in the 20th century. Dammit, we even allowed ourselves to swallow the line that the Emperor (and the rest of the royal family) were somehow prisoners of the military and so must be absolved from all blame. The loathsome Douglas MacArthur unilaterally decided to give immunity to all of the imperial family, ignoring Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, who actually gave the order to kill all the civilians during the Rape of Nanking.

Here in 2015 we're still wringing our hands about bringing the war to an earlier end by the - yes, appalling - act of dropping 2 atomic bombs; but we ignore the loss of life that would have happened if the war had continued using conventional weapons. People forget the dreadful scenes in Okinawa where the Imperial Army forced men, women and children to kill themselves as part of their warped strategy to fight the invading Americans using any means. It was part of Japanese strategy that eventually western troops would be so sickened by the civilian suicides that they'd give up.

Yes, remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki; yes, do everything we can to ensure that no more nuclear weapons are ever deployed.

But remember too the good that those 2 bombs did in helping to bring down a regime of unspeakable brutality

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Why would no one know what led up to the A-bombings?

A century of Western gunboat diplomacy and imperialism literally forcing Japan in to the same game which she played more vilely than the West? As long as we count the Philippines genocide as 'unfortunate'? Collateral damage, not policy?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And at the end of the war we allowed ourselves to be bullied by the Americans into soft-pedalling on the pursuit of bringing war crimes indictments against 99.9% of those responsible for some of the ghastliest atrocities perpetrated in the 20th century. Dammit, we even allowed ourselves to swallow the line that the Emperor (and the rest of the royal family) were somehow prisoners of the military and so must be absolved from all blame. The loathsome Douglas MacArthur unilaterally decided to give immunity to all of the imperial family, ignoring Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, who actually gave the order to kill all the civilians during the Rape of Nanking.

I deplore the power that MacArthur had to make decisions. He was a military man and had no special qualifications for making such decisions.

However, I do believe it was a good idea to keep Hirohito on the throne, not because he was innocent, but because his presence promoted stability. I have read a lot about what happened in Germany after World War 1. I am convinced that if the Kaiser had been left on the throne with his wings clipped, Hitler would never have come to power.

Moo

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I deplore the power that MacArthur had to make decisions. He was a military man and had no special qualifications for making such decisions.

However, I do believe it was a good idea to keep Hirohito on the throne, not because he was innocent, but because his presence promoted stability. I have read a lot about what happened in Germany after World War 1. I am convinced that if the Kaiser had been left on the throne with his wings clipped, Hitler would never have come to power.

Moo

Yes, MacArthur may have been a good soldier (not sure why anyone during WW II would have called him loathsome, nor even after Korea either) but that sort of decision was not military and should either have been settled at Yalta, or through some other governmental process.

I can't see any of the Hohenzollerns letting Hitler into power. They may not have the Hapsburgs' detestation of Nazism, but would have been in happy to see a solid restoration of the generally sound social policies that Bismarck started (much more generous social security than any other European country at the time) even if the immature and bellicose foreign policy that the Kaiser preferred needed to be ditched.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Many of Hitler's early followers were royalists. Since they couldn't have the Kaiser, they saw Hitler as second-best.

Moo

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thanks rolyn and Moo: I was beginning to wonder whether anyone actually remembered what went before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Post-war Japan has done an excellent job of making the rest of the world feel guilty about dropping the bombs while avoiding any meaningful acceptance of their part in some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.

The spry old veterans we've seen this weekend haven't helped either: completely atypical outliers.

I remember instead the haggard and tormented contemporaries of my father, men who'd been POW in the Far East. They did not make old bones. At the New Year, when a glass or two had been taken, old soldiers would reminisce, and we'd lurk and listen fascinated by tales of blood and guts. But when those who'd served in the Far East began their horror stories we were chased off to bed.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have read a lot about what happened in Germany after World War 1. I am convinced that if the Kaiser had been left on the throne with his wings clipped, Hitler would never have come to power.

I don't claim to be expert on this and know that history will always hold a place for suggesting the ending of the First German war sowed the seeds for the Second.

It does strike me though that having delivered such destruction on Germany and Japan in 45 it did make both countries a little more malleable when it came to rebuilding the post-war world.
Not the case in 1918, whereby a virtually bankrupted Britain joined the Allies in basically telling a battered foe take the punishment and don't do it again. Hindsight made that a bad strategy.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And at the end of the war we allowed ourselves to be bullied by the Americans into soft-pedalling on the pursuit of bringing war crimes indictments against 99.9% of those responsible for some of the ghastliest atrocities perpetrated in the 20th century.

According to Wikipedia, over 5700 were indicted for war crimes in the Pacific theater. If the number had been 1000 times larger, it would have been nearly equal in size to the entire Imperial Japanese Army at the end of the war.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

There is a huge difference between indicting people and their being found guilty - and, in the case of the Japanese, even then the chances of them serving a sentence was not great.

For example, in the case of the most high profile International Military Tribunal (the so-called Tokyo War Crimes Trial):

28 were indicted
2 were not brought to trial
2 died during the trial
1 was judged mentally unfit to plead or be tried
7 were executed
16 were given life sentences

Of the 16 so-called life sentences, none were served: 3 died in prison, the remaining 13 were paroled in the mid 1950s. Given that the court was adjourned (it never sat again) in November, the so-called life sentences worked out at a maximum of 7½ years.

There were other, smaller tribunals set up by the individual powers but, with the exception of the Chinese, these tended to use the results of the Tokyo trials as precedent and sentencing was much more lenient than in European trials.

For example, although it is often bandied about that Nobusuke Kishi, grandfather of the current Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, was a 'war criminal' in fact although indicted he was never tried but was released from custody in 1947, going on to be Prime Minister.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Can you clarify how someone has not served a life sentance if they died in prison?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry, you're right Alan C. What I really meant is that at a maximum of under 8 years the life sentences would seem very lenient even in today's UK, never mind the world of the 1950s.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It does strike me though that having delivered such destruction on Germany and Japan in 45 it did make both countries a little more malleable when it came to rebuilding the post-war world.
Not the case in 1918, whereby a virtually bankrupted Britain joined the Allies in basically telling a battered foe take the punishment and don't do it again. Hindsight made that a bad strategy.

My impression is that things in Germany got so bad because of unstable government. Woodrow Wilson assumed that representative democracy was something that came naturally to people, whatever their past history. In fact, many Germans hated the idea of not having a Kaiser. Many political groups were formed and quite a few of them resorted to violence. When Hitler came to power, many people gave a sigh of relief because it meant no more fighting in the streets.

Moo

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is a huge difference between indicting people and their being found guilty -

I should hope so! Otherwise, what would be the point of having trials at all?

You were complaining before about the number who were indicted - are you abandoning your suggestion that there should have been 5,700,000 indictments rather than 5700?

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :

A few thoughts.

First, the "island hopping" strategy was primarily that practiced by the United States Navy, led by Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief Pacific. That was, by far, the most significant campaign of the Pacific war (MacArthur's campaigns in the Southwest Pacific were, IMHO, really a sideshow, albeit one that tied down Imperial Japanese Army and Army Air Force assets). The Central Pacific campaign utilized island hopping on a grand scale, leaving isolated Japanese garrisons to starve and rapidly shrinking Japan's defensive perimeter.

The USN's conquest of the Marianas (implemented with Army and Marine units under the overall command of CINCPAC (and later Iwo Jima as a fighter field) allowed the USAAF to deploy B-29s to mine Japanese waters, incinerate Japanese cities and, ultimately, to drop the two A-bombs.

Second, the American Navy did not begin to have an effective submarine force until late 1943 early 1944, due to undiscovered problems with its torpedoes. And even then, I have read that more Japanese shipping was destroyed by the 1945 B-29 mining campaign, though the destruction of the Japanese merchant fleet (and the Imperial Japanese Navy) was in large part due to submarine attack. Thus, there was no ability to "blockade" the Japanese home islands until fairly late in the war. It should be recalled that major units of the Kaigun, including the superbattleships Yamato and Musashi, a number of fleet carriers and numerous other battleships, cruisers and destroyers, were still extent as late as October 1944, when they were consumed by attempts to turn back the American landings on Leyte.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If we're bringing the Kaiser into it, can we just say the whole thing is Queen Victoria's fault for having such assholio offspring, and British Empire in general for refusing to allow Germany pre-war parity and the sort of free hand Britain had exercised around the world such that it would have been its natural successor thus saving us from the British overseas bases going American?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Dave W

quote:
You were complaining before about the number who were indicted - are you abandoning your suggestion that there should have been 5,700,000 indictments rather than 5700?

Eh? I have never suggested a number for indictment. What I said was that there were relatively few trials, and that a unilateral decision was made by the US not to pursue those suspected or accused of war crimes even on the same (IMO lack lustre) scale as happened in Europe.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

To refresh your memory:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And at the end of the war we allowed ourselves to be bullied by the Americans into soft-pedalling on the pursuit of bringing war crimes indictments against 99.9% of those responsible for some of the ghastliest atrocities perpetrated in the 20th century.

This seems to suggest the actual number of indictments was only 0.1% of the number there should have been; since there were 5,700 indictments, that implies there should have been 5,700,000.

If this isn't what you meant to imply, what did the 99.9% number refer to?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Oooh! And I thought I was the one with a gift for pedantry.

No, I'm not suggesting that five and a half million people should have been indicted for war crimes. But it is generally acknowledged that there was a massive difference in the number of people named as 'wanted' after the European war came to an end and the number named in the FE; and that when it came to tracking people down and putting them on trial, it depended greatly on which of the countries responsible for an area it was and the resources they put into it.

For example, the senior judge to the MT from India didn't make a single finding of guilty: this was nothing to do with the evidence but rather that he was a leading figure in the fight for Indian independence from the UK and saw his role as a jurist as being subordinate to his political beliefs.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I think it's undeniable that there was a definite incompleteness about the trials after the war. Not always for reasons for real-politic either. One of my criticisms about the trial of Groning was that after the war thousands of mid-ranking Nazi's who had actually participated personally in killings and atrocities were either not taken to court, or were never sentenced. As such, legally pursuing someone who had a less direct connection with the atrocities many years after the event is a cheap exculpatory option.

In the case of Japan the process went much further. Anyone who has visited the war exhibits in the national museum in Tokyo would have seen the extent to which the country at large is myopic towards their actions preceding and during the war.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Dave W
quote:
You were complaining before about the number who were indicted - are you abandoning your suggestion that there should have been 5,700,000 indictments rather than 5700?
Eh? I have never suggested a number for indictment. What I said was that there were relatively few trials, and that a unilateral decision was made by the US not to pursue those suspected or accused of war crimes even on the same (IMO lack lustre) scale as happened in Europe.

I recall once seeing the figures for the Japanese war crimes trials but the only number I recall is that almost a thousand Japanese war criminals were executed (I have just found a figure of 920), which was higher than the (my quick count) 62 German Nazis and 102 collaborators.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oooh! And I thought I was the one with a gift for pedantry.

Not that I've noticed. Overblown hyperbole, perhaps.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Overblown hyperbole

As opposed to that other kind?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Overblown hyperbole
As opposed to that other kind?

That would be subtle hyperbole. It's a British thing [Razz]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Augustine the Aleut

quote:
I recall once seeing the figures for the Japanese war crimes trials but the only number I recall is that almost a thousand Japanese war criminals were executed (I have just found a figure of 920), which was higher than the (my quick count) 62 German Nazis and 102 collaborators.

Accessing information about war crimes trials relating to WWII in Europe is difficult because the trials involved numerous jurisdictions and countries, but some of the trials can be found online.

The so-called Nuremberg trials, for example, didn't all take place in that city, but convention is that they are still referred to as such because those were the trials that took place with judges from all four of the Allied powers - US, USSR, UK and France.

In addition to the centralised Nuremberg trials, each of the Allied powers undertook separate trials for crimes committed within its given area (the total land mass occupied by Nazi Germany was divided between the four) and some of the liberated countries undertook their own investigations and trials.

As well as that, the Soviets started to investigate and prosecute war crimes as early as 1943: in particular they put on trial Soviet citizens accused of collaboration in the murders carried out by Einsatzgruppen in the occupied parts of the USSR. No overall figures have ever been given for these trials.

Similarly, the Soviets have never provided figures for the trials carried out in their area (particularly the Baltic countries) post-war. The same applies to other countries in Eastern Europe - the only trial with publicised outsome was in Poland and involved SS from Auschwitz and other camps.

However, with information available, the following numbers can be proved for death sentences:

Nuremberg trials 239
US sector 278 executed (46 others sentence commuted to life)
British sector 240 executed
French sector 104 executed
Krakow trial 31 executed
Norway 37 (12 German, 25 Norwegian)
Estonia 2 executed
Italy 4 executed

Trials also took place in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark of their own citizens who had either collaborated with the occupying Nazis or who had joined national units in the Nazi military.

As an occupied country that had collaborated at national level, France was in a unique position in western Europe and literally thousands were indicted and tried between 1946 and 1951. Nearly 6,800 death sentences were passed, although only 791 were carried out. Former members of the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division were given a choice of imprisonment or service with the Foreign Legion in Indo-China, while the divisions senior officers were tried in courts martial and shot.

So I think we can take your figure of 62 executions as being somewhat of an under-estimate.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

L'Organist writes:

quote:
.... underestimate...

It certainly was. I had entirely forgotten about the French executions and have no excuse for that (indeed, the great-uncle of a French friend was among them). And, of course, the Soviet records have now been again largely hidden from researchers.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

AIUI any Soviet soldiers who were captured by the Germans were executed by the Soviet government after they were repatriated.

Moo

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI any Soviet soldiers who were captured by the Germans were executed by the Soviet government after they were repatriated.

Moo

I would leave them out of the discussion on war criminals but IIRC Solzhenitsyn, in the Gulag Archipelago, gives us many account of the ex-POWs in the Gulag. For my own part, I have met one of the ex-POWs, who was with the delegation who lay the Red Partisan wreath at the Cenotaph in Ottawa two years ago. He told me that he really enjoyed Chinese food after the Liturgy on Sunday.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think you're thinking of the Cossacks.

Stalin demanded that Cossacks who were captured by other allied powers (because fighting for the Reich) be repatriated at the end of the war: the demand was initially made at the Yalta conference and although Churchill argued that many were not Soviet citizens (having left Russia during or at the end of the civil war) Roosevelt agreed and told Churchill he must so (a) they had a united front, and (b) to ensure that the USSR would declare war on Japan.

In the event, the fate of the cossacks was sealed at Potsdam when Truman (replacing Roosevelt) made no attempt to fight for them and Attlee (who replaced Churchill half-way through the Conference) was advised by Ernest Bevin that it would be difficult to divide the cossacks between traitors and political refugees so all would be sent back since cossacks were known to be traitors.

At least 50% of the cossacks repatriated - mainly from Austria and the UK but also from the USA - were executed on their return: that included women and children who should never have been part of the repatriations in the first place. Of the other 50% nearly all were sent to the gulag, with the majority perishing. After Staline's death when the living were released it was found that only about 10% remained alive.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0