Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[whichphilosophy]

Loren: Bombing civilians is NEVER THE RIGHT ANSWER. When it happens to us, we call it TERRORISM.

It was the only answer. There is no right or wrong in all out war. Of course strategic bombing is terrorism. There is no other reason for it, you are trying to force the country you are fighting to quit fighting. Both Hitler and the Japanese military had ordered their people to fight to the last person. When this situation is confronted one must bypass the leader and convince the populace. Unless you want to fight them to the last person.

Hitler wanted but the Japanese were not that dumb, hence peace initiatives on their part. They way they approached the subject is common in times of war where they try to deal through neutral parties.

 

[bilby]

It was the only answer. There is no right or wrong in all out war. Of course strategic bombing is terrorism. There is no other reason for it, you are trying to force the country you are fighting to quit fighting. Both Hitler and the Japanese military had ordered their people to fight to the last person. When this situation is confronted one must bypass the leader and convince the populace. Unless you want to fight them to the last person.

Hitler wanted but the Japanese were not that dumb, hence peace initiatives on their part. They way they approached the subject is common in times of war where they try to deal through neutral parties.

That's a nice hypothesis you've got there. Pity it relies on the idea that the Germans were more prone to fighting to the last man than the Japanese - because that dependency means it can be tested against reality, and found to be diametrically opposed to it.

You are not SERIOUSLY trying to say that the Germans were more inclined to fight to the last man than the Japanese, are you?

Hitler frequently ordered such 'last stands', and declared forces that had been surrounded and cut off as 'fortresses'; But his soldiers knew when they were beaten, and had zero inclination to follow those orders - There came a point when even being captured by the Soviets was a better choice than trying to fight on.

The Japanese - even civilian Japanese - on the other hand, were infamous for refusing to surrender even when there was clearly no other option than death.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hitler wanted but the Japanese were not that dumb, hence peace initiatives on their part. They way they approached the subject is common in times of war where they try to deal through neutral parties.

That's a nice hypothesis you've got there. Pity it relies on the idea that the Germans were more prone to fighting to the last man than the Japanese - because that dependency means it can be tested against reality, and found to be diametrically opposed to it.

You are not SERIOUSLY trying to say that the Germans were more inclined to fight to the last man than the Japanese, are you?

Hitler frequently ordered such 'last stands', and declared forces that had been surrounded and cut off as 'fortresses'; But his soldiers knew when they were beaten, and had zero inclination to follow those orders - There came a point when even being captured by the Soviets was a better choice than trying to fight on.

The Japanese - even civilian Japanese - on the other hand, were infamous for refusing to surrender even when there was clearly no other option than death.

The reality is what happened. The Japanese leadership wished to preserve its dynasty despite its code of warfare . The allied forces never reached the stage of full invasions of Japan which were possible just a few months away. Hitler meanwhile committed suicide. Hirohito didn't of course. In fact this is also evidenced by the fact that the Japanese looked for peace options early in 1945.

 

[Tristan Scott]

It was the only answer. There is no right or wrong in all out war. Of course strategic bombing is terrorism. There is no other reason for it, you are trying to force the country you are fighting to quit fighting. Both Hitler and the Japanese military had ordered their people to fight to the last person. When this situation is confronted one must bypass the leader and convince the populace. Unless you want to fight them to the last person.

Hitler wanted but the Japanese were not that dumb, hence peace initiatives on their part. They way they approached the subject is common in times of war where they try to deal through neutral parties.

You're still doing it. There were no initiatives. An initiative in diplomacy are talks that have been initiated between the parties involved. Japanese diplomats were not authorized to initiate talks, they were only authorized to explore the possibility of such talks.

 

[Tristan Scott]

That's a nice hypothesis you've got there. Pity it relies on the idea that the Germans were more prone to fighting to the last man than the Japanese - because that dependency means it can be tested against reality, and found to be diametrically opposed to it.

You are not SERIOUSLY trying to say that the Germans were more inclined to fight to the last man than the Japanese, are you?

Hitler frequently ordered such 'last stands', and declared forces that had been surrounded and cut off as 'fortresses'; But his soldiers knew when they were beaten, and had zero inclination to follow those orders - There came a point when even being captured by the Soviets was a better choice than trying to fight on.

The Japanese - even civilian Japanese - on the other hand, were infamous for refusing to surrender even when there was clearly no other option than death.

The reality is what happened. The Japanese leadership wished to preserve its dynasty despite its code of warfare . The allied forces never reached the stage of full invasions of Japan which were possible just a few months away. Hitler meanwhile committed suicide. Hirohito didn't of course. In fact this is also evidenced by the fact that the Japanese looked for peace options early in 1945.

Again, this is misleading. When you say Japanese leadership, you are referring to the civilian leadership. The military leadership had a completely different perspective. The committee that Suzuki appointed to end the war was made up of three civilian and three military. They were divided 3-3, the civilians wanted to discuss surrender terms with the allies, and the military wanted to continue. As I have pointed out to you several times on this thread, the deadlock continued until August 9, broken by the emperor. Yes, they were looking for options, but there was no authorization to begin talks until after the bombs were dropped.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The reality is what happened. The Japanese leadership wished to preserve its dynasty despite its code of warfare . The allied forces never reached the stage of full invasions of Japan which were possible just a few months away. Hitler meanwhile committed suicide. Hirohito didn't of course. In fact this is also evidenced by the fact that the Japanese looked for peace options early in 1945.

Again, this is misleading. When you say Japanese leadership, you are referring to the civilian leadership. The military leadership had a completely different perspective. The committee that Suzuki appointed to end the war was made up of three civilian and three military. They were divided 3-3, the civilians wanted to discuss surrender terms with the allies, and the military wanted to continue. As I have pointed out to you several times on this thread, the deadlock continued until August 9, broken by the emperor. Yes, they were looking for options, but there was no authorization to begin talks until after the bombs were dropped.

Nobody responded to start the talks. Exploratory leads to discovery. An example of this were the talks with the IRA. Britain consistently refused the IRA terms for talks for many years. Eventually solutions were found.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course some Japanese didn't want to surrender and there was a short lived attempted military coup on 14 and 15 August 1945. The Japanese military code forbid surrender and some were bound to rebel or disobey orders. The prevailing argument is that the Emperor himself had ordered it so that should be obeyed. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the fact that peace talks could have been held months earlier and saves hundreds of thousands of lives. The peace feelers in Switzerland and to Russia were not done just for fun or as a hoax.

Peace feelers were authorized but there was no intention of surrendering. The Japanese wanted conditions that the allies were not going to give them. You are either being dishonest by not acknowledging that or you truly don't know what you are talking about. When you keep repeating things that aren't true, that are purposely misleading it makes having a discussion on a subject impossible.

Of course there were Japanese conditions the allies didn't want to give them. Unless you are telepathic the Japanese did seek an end to the war and their surrender obviously would have had points that could not be met. Hence a ceasefire to commence talks would have worked. The Russians ignored the Japanese as they were planning to invade Manchuria to remove the Emperor's troops from there.

So the US commanders I quoted who dissented were wrong? If you lived in Asia for 11 years you would realize that they also haggle even if they have nothing to haggle with. The Japanese of course were trying to gain as much as possible and avoid an actual surrender, but that did not necessitate genocide instead of discussion. It is fortunate that the US does not think like that any more.

Human nature being what it is, acts of lunacy still get justified by the perpetrator.

 

[Bronzeage]

The reality is what happened. The Japanese leadership wished to preserve its dynasty despite its code of warfare . The allied forces never reached the stage of full invasions of Japan which were possible just a few months away. Hitler meanwhile committed suicide. Hirohito didn't of course. In fact this is also evidenced by the fact that the Japanese looked for peace options early in 1945.

Again, this is misleading. When you say Japanese leadership, you are referring to the civilian leadership. The military leadership had a completely different perspective. The committee that Suzuki appointed to end the war was made up of three civilian and three military. They were divided 3-3, the civilians wanted to discuss surrender terms with the allies, and the military wanted to continue. As I have pointed out to you several times on this thread, the deadlock continued until August 9, broken by the emperor. Yes, they were looking for options, but there was no authorization to begin talks until after the bombs were dropped.

There was a sentiment among the Japanese military that the shame of defeat could be ameliorated by a glorious death in battle. An Allied invasion would offer many opportunities for glorious death. There was nothing glorious about being incinerated by an atomic bomb. It was the use of atomic weapons which removed the last obstacle to a sensible surrender.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Again, this is misleading. When you say Japanese leadership, you are referring to the civilian leadership. The military leadership had a completely different perspective. The committee that Suzuki appointed to end the war was made up of three civilian and three military. They were divided 3-3, the civilians wanted to discuss surrender terms with the allies, and the military wanted to continue. As I have pointed out to you several times on this thread, the deadlock continued until August 9, broken by the emperor. Yes, they were looking for options, but there was no authorization to begin talks until after the bombs were dropped.

There was a sentiment among the Japanese military that the shame of defeat could be ameliorated by a glorious death in battle. An Allied invasion would offer many opportunities for glorious death. There was nothing glorious about being incinerated by an atomic bomb. It was the use of atomic weapons which removed the last obstacle to a sensible surrender.

There are several statements I quoted where US leaders stated the A Bomb was not necessary. What was wrong with peace talks starting earlier instead of the bomb?

 

[Bronzeage]

There was a sentiment among the Japanese military that the shame of defeat could be ameliorated by a glorious death in battle. An Allied invasion would offer many opportunities for glorious death. There was nothing glorious about being incinerated by an atomic bomb. It was the use of atomic weapons which removed the last obstacle to a sensible surrender.

There are several statements I quoted where US leaders stated the A Bomb was not necessary. What was wrong with peace talks starting earlier instead of the bomb?

I give up? What's the answer to that one? Well, for one thing, there was not going to be "peace" talks. There might have been "surrender" talks, but that didn't work out.

Harry Truman could have made a public statement somewhere along the lines of, "We understand the Empire of Japan has a rigid hierarchy of military control which makes it very difficult for them to lay down their arms and stop killing people, even when it's clear there is no hope of victory. With that in mind, we would very much like for them to put aside all those centuries of ingrained culture, and sit down at the table with us, where we can discuss dismantling their entire society. If they don't want to do this, we have a really really big bomb and we're gonna use on them."

What he actually said was,

The Japanese people have felt the weight of our land, air and naval attacks. So long as their leaders and the armed forces continue the war the striking power and intensity of our blows will steadily increase and will bring utter destruction to Japan's industrial war production, to its shipping, and to everything that supports its military activity.

The longer the war lasts, the greater will be the suffering and hardships which the people of Japan will undergo--all in vain. Our blows will not cease until the Japanese military and naval forces lay down their arms in unconditional surrender.

Just what does the unconditional surrender of the armed forces mean for the Japanese people ?

It means the end of the war.

It means the termination of the influence of the military leaders who have brought Japan to the present brink of disaster.

It means provision for the return of soldiers and sailors to their families, their farms, their jobs.

It means not prolonging the present agony and suffering of the Japanese in the vain hope of victory.

Unconditional surrender does not mean the extermination or slavement of the Japanese people.

Which seems like a pretty good deal, all in all.

 

[Tristan Scott]

There was a sentiment among the Japanese military that the shame of defeat could be ameliorated by a glorious death in battle. An Allied invasion would offer many opportunities for glorious death. There was nothing glorious about being incinerated by an atomic bomb. It was the use of atomic weapons which removed the last obstacle to a sensible surrender.

There are several statements I quoted where US leaders stated the A Bomb was not necessary. What was wrong with peace talks starting earlier instead of the bomb?

As Bronzeage pointed out, and as history tells us there was not going to be peace talks. The allies made it clear-unconditional surrender was the demand, and rightfully so.

How easy it is to sit here 70 years later and criticize the decisions made by people who were actually living through this. The war with Japan was unlike any war the world had ever seen. The Japanese never surrendered. Before taken even their wounded would charge our soldiers in bandages and on crutches. And because of their belief that surrender was dishonorable they treated their POWs horribly. To the US the day of infamy was the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but to the Japanese the day of infamy was in February 1942 when 80,000 British troops surrendered without firing a shot. These prisoners faced years of hell as their captors used them as slaves, tortured and starved them. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed fleeing Singapore when the unarmed ships they were aboard were sunk by the IJN.

No, the fact remains that the American people would have accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender. In his final demand to the Japanese, known as the Potsdam declaration Truman insisted that the Japanese unconditionally surrender their armed forces in all theaters of battle, he purposely withheld mention of the Emperor, which was a signal to the Japanese that the retention of the Emperor was on the table. When told of this the military leaders still refused to surrender.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are several statements I quoted where US leaders stated the A Bomb was not necessary. What was wrong with peace talks starting earlier instead of the bomb?

As Bronzeage pointed out, and as history tells us there was not going to be peace talks. The allies made it clear-unconditional surrender was the demand, and rightfully so.

How easy it is to sit here 70 years later and criticize the decisions made by people who were actually living through this. The war with Japan was unlike any war the world had ever seen. The Japanese never surrendered. Before taken even their wounded would charge our soldiers in bandages and on crutches. And because of their belief that surrender was dishonorable they treated their POWs horribly. To the US the day of infamy was the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but to the Japanese the day of infamy was in February 1942 when 80,000 British troops surrendered without firing a shot. These prisoners faced years of hell as their captors used them as slaves, tortured and starved them. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed fleeing Singapore when the unarmed ships they were aboard were sunk by the IJN.

No, the fact remains that the American people would have accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender. In his final demand to the Japanese, known as the Potsdam declaration Truman insisted that the Japanese unconditionally surrender their armed forces in all theaters of battle, he purposely withheld mention of the Emperor, which was a signal to the Japanese that the retention of the Emperor was on the table. When told of this the military leaders still refused to surrender.

What was wrong about peace talks regardless of this? Syria has a problem with convening peace talks because the US is pushing for preconditions. Why not just talk to prevent the Japanese killings of more prisoners and to secure their release from its colonies. Of course Japan was an unusual situation but all wars are unique. The Emperor would have still stayed in power and now doubt some military offices would have committed suicide and others offered as sacrificial pawns for trial. Japan had no where to go and it was blockaded anyway.

 

[Artemus]

As Bronzeage pointed out, and as history tells us there was not going to be peace talks. The allies made it clear-unconditional surrender was the demand, and rightfully so.

How easy it is to sit here 70 years later and criticize the decisions made by people who were actually living through this. The war with Japan was unlike any war the world had ever seen. The Japanese never surrendered. Before taken even their wounded would charge our soldiers in bandages and on crutches. And because of their belief that surrender was dishonorable they treated their POWs horribly. To the US the day of infamy was the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but to the Japanese the day of infamy was in February 1942 when 80,000 British troops surrendered without firing a shot. These prisoners faced years of hell as their captors used them as slaves, tortured and starved them. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed fleeing Singapore when the unarmed ships they were aboard were sunk by the IJN.

No, the fact remains that the American people would have accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender. In his final demand to the Japanese, known as the Potsdam declaration Truman insisted that the Japanese unconditionally surrender their armed forces in all theaters of battle, he purposely withheld mention of the Emperor, which was a signal to the Japanese that the retention of the Emperor was on the table. When told of this the military leaders still refused to surrender.

What was wrong about peace talks regardless of this? Syria has a problem with convening peace talks because the US is pushing for preconditions. Why not just talk to prevent the Japanese killings of more prisoners and to secure their release from its colonies. Of course Japan was an unusual situation but all wars are unique. The Emperor would have still stayed in power and now doubt some military offices would have committed suicide and others offered as sacrificial pawns for trial. Japan had no where to go and it was blockaded anyway.

Don't know if this has been mentioned in the previous 37 pages, but the resurgence of Germany after WW1 taught the Allies to accept nothing less than a full surrender, including occupation of the defeated country. They weren't about to let that happen again.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What was wrong about peace talks regardless of this? Syria has a problem with convening peace talks because the US is pushing for preconditions. Why not just talk to prevent the Japanese killings of more prisoners and to secure their release from its colonies. Of course Japan was an unusual situation but all wars are unique. The Emperor would have still stayed in power and now doubt some military offices would have committed suicide and others offered as sacrificial pawns for trial. Japan had no where to go and it was blockaded anyway.

Don't know if this has been mentioned in the previous 37 pages, but the resurgence of Germany after WW1 taught the Allies to accept nothing less than a full surrender, including occupation of the defeated country. They weren't about to let that happen again.

Occupation was a fat load of good in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Artemus]

Don't know if this has been mentioned in the previous 37 pages, but the resurgence of Germany after WW1 taught the Allies to accept nothing less than a full surrender, including occupation of the defeated country. They weren't about to let that happen again.

Occupation was a fat load of good in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the decisions made in world war II.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Occupation was a fat load of good in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the decisions made in world war II.

Britain overran the Stots and Irish burning everything to the ground, even worse than unconditional surrender, yet they both kept coming back.
The Germans soon learnt of the Reich's crimes's thus support for Hitler soon declined. The Japanese also learnt to the extent of its actual crimes on civilians. There is nothing to suggest that a conditional surrender would have made no difference. The US needed an excuse test the A bomb despite reservations from its on military leadership before and after. Just because the Japanese were savages didn't give the US an excuse for more of the same. The US completely overran Iraq then created worse.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Which is entirely irrelevant to the decisions made in world war II.

Britain overran the Stots and Irish burning everything to the ground, even worse than unconditional surrender, yet they both kept coming back.
The Germans soon learnt of the Reich's crimes's thus support for Hitler soon declined. The Japanese also learnt to the extent of its actual crimes on civilians. There is nothing to suggest that a conditional surrender would have made no difference. The US needed an excuse test the A bomb despite reservations from its on military leadership before and after. Just because the Japanese were savages didn't give the US an excuse for more of the same. The US completely overran Iraq then created worse.

There is no evidence to support your claims regarding the Japanese people's awareness or reaction to war crimes in China, nor for your bogus claim that our leaders wanted to test the bomb on the Japanese. What a load of crap.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Britain overran the Stots and Irish burning everything to the ground, even worse than unconditional surrender, yet they both kept coming back.
The Germans soon learnt of the Reich's crimes's thus support for Hitler soon declined. The Japanese also learnt to the extent of its actual crimes on civilians. There is nothing to suggest that a conditional surrender would have made no difference. The US needed an excuse test the A bomb despite reservations from its on military leadership before and after. Just because the Japanese were savages didn't give the US an excuse for more of the same. The US completely overran Iraq then created worse.

There is no evidence to support your claims regarding the Japanese people's awareness or reaction to war crimes in China, nor for your bogus claim that our leaders wanted to test the bomb on the Japanese. What a load of crap.

Like the Germans, the Japanese didn't give front page coverage to its war crimes. What other use was the bomb other than to see what damage its first use could inflict?

 

[Tristan Scott]

There is no evidence to support your claims regarding the Japanese people's awareness or reaction to war crimes in China, nor for your bogus claim that our leaders wanted to test the bomb on the Japanese. What a load of crap.

Like the Germans, the Japanese didn't give front page coverage to its war crimes. What other use was the bomb other than to see what damage its first use could inflict?

There is no evidence that the Japanese people knew of or the extent of the war crimes until decades after the war was over.

The use of the atomic bombs were to force the surrender of the Japanese, which history shows without a doubt, succeeded.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Like the Germans, the Japanese didn't give front page coverage to its war crimes. What other use was the bomb other than to see what damage its first use could inflict?

There is no evidence that the Japanese people knew of or the extent of the war crimes until decades after the war was over.

The use of the atomic bombs were to force the surrender of the Japanese, which history shows without a doubt, succeeded.

Not decades but the full extent, certainly.

Here is an article which I think is trying to provide the views of both sides.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature...ic-bombs-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-during-second