|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hiroshima Nagasaki Seventieth Anniversary
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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..."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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 cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
All of which justified killing a city. Meh.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
A willing surrender is a strange concept, when you think about it. Doesn't every country refuse to surrender until it is compelled?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
For the avoidance of doubt, it's the personal insults that belong in Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PeteB
Shipmate
# 2357
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Believe in the ethics. Can't accept the mumbo jumbo.
Clem Attlee on Christianity
Posts: 211 | From: Swindon, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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.”
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yes, our comments did cross, and fair point.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Morality is indeed a luxury in war.
Scary as hell that people believe this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
