Japan forgivable?

[Mark of Zorro]

Your helpful and/or civil posts can be counted on one hand with fingers left over.

Just tell me who I abused and how Mike.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:53 ----------

I resent your tactless remark that what is posted is "horseshit."

Maybe this is what Mike is talking about? Hey, I posted that the "millions" estimate is horse$#!T. But I don't think ArmandV invented it. He just repeated it, I think. I was attacking the number, not ArmandV. But I stand by my characterization of the estimate, if its even worthy of that name, and invite you or AmandV to convince all readers that its a legitimate and sound number, and not at all an obscene political piece of dung designed to convince Americans and the world that intentionally killing innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the (cough, gag) "moral" thing to do.

Who made the estimate and how. Lets have it.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I don't recall the real Zorro giving long-winded speeches before slashing with his sword.

That was Robin Hood in "Men in Tights," if I recall right.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

What are your qualifications that makes you an expert on World War II history, eh?

Don't ask me. Like so many net denizens, I might lie! No. Ask Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Nimitz what their qualifications were. They all opposed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for pretty much all of the same reasons I do.

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." --Chief of Staff to Truman, William D. Leahy,

 

[alecgraham]

How in blue blazes do you construe all that to mean the bombings of Hiroshima is what made Japan throw in the towel??

Jref, welcome to the Zorro Vortex. Zorro, Jref.

 

[Mike Cash]

Jref, welcome to the Zorro Vortex. Zorro, Jref.

I've opted out.

 

[ArmandV]

It is no use trying to deal with trolls.

• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that
conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale
participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Operation_Downfall.pdf

 

[nahadef]

Well, I'm not a troll, and I still think the bombings appalling. But I don't see the point in arguing. If Vietnam or Iraq had ever managed to destroy San Diego with an atomic bomb, there is no situation where Americans could find it acceptable or necessary. But they expect Japan to do so.

With great power comes great responsibility.

And yet I still manage to find Japan's wartime crimes appalling!

 

[alecgraham]

Well, I'm not a troll, and I still think the bombings appalling. But I don't see the point in arguing. If Vietnam or Iraq had ever managed to destroy San Diego with an atomic bomb, there is no situation where Americans could find it acceptable or necessary. But they expect Japan to do so.

With great power comes great responsibility.

And yet I still manage to find Japan's wartime crimes appalling!

I can't speak for other Americans, but I don't expect Japanese, especially those from Nagasaki or Hiroshima, to ever find it "acceptable", just as I would not if I had been born there. But, as a Canadian, you have benefited from America's power, as arrogant as that sounds. The economy, the fact that you can use English abroad (partially), and so many other things. Your whole life was shaped in part by the outcome of WWII (as was mine), but as a Canadian you don't have to feel any of the guilt of having participated in the most destructive actions that ended WWII.

Well, the good news is that most of us can move on. (Again, I don't expect everyone to, because when you're too close to the effects, explanations don't matter). My family lived in Japan in the late sixties and were treated quite well. The U.S. is one of the largest centers of ethnic Japanese outside of Japan. I had a good friend in college who was from Hiroshima.

Vietnam and Iraq were disasters for sure, but it's still a bit disingenuous to even suggest that Americans were out for conquest the way the Axis powers were.

 

[nahadef]

I don't expect that Americans today should feel guilt, anymore than Japan should for what their ancestors did, or Canadians should for the founding of the country. I do have problems with the completely unrelated justifications I've repeatedly heard, that either it was necessary or it was no worse than what Japan did. The first is not true, and the second is a school yard excuse: but he started it! If America wants to say it's on the high road, it needs to acknowledge hzving taken the low road.

Maybe I needed to be there, but I just can't see why it was necessary now. It is not a clear cut case.

 

[alecgraham]

Was it necessary? We can only speculate on the infinite outcomes from making alternate decisions. Truman and others who were stuck with the dilemma made their choice to the best of their ability. I don't think they enjoyed knowing full well that the final decision would result in so much death and destruction. That is, just because they made that tough decision doesn't mean they took it lightly.

or it was no worse than what Japan did

Have you read the details of the atrocities committed by the Japanese? I myself only dare to read them on an empty stomach. They dropped plague bombs on China. Biological warfare. They experimented on prisoners much in the way that Nazis did. Removing all 4 limbs and keeping the torso alive for experiments. Freezing. Sensory deprivation. Beheadings.

Of those who don't believe the a-bomb was necessary to stop the war, of those who think it was overkill, nearly all acknowledge that it did stop the war, effectively getting the Japanese to surrender six days later. (And let's not forget that they were asked to surrender *before* the bombings).
Def, I ask you, can you connect the beheadings and other atrocities in the paragraph above with a Japanese desire to stop the war? If you cannot, then you may have to accept that they were worse than the bombings, that it (the a-bomb) was "no worse than what Japan did."

War is more complicated than a schoolyard scrap. The analogy is a poor one.

 

[nahadef]

Have you read the details of the atrocities committed by the Japanese?

Some, yes, specifically their activities in China. I say "no worse" to say that I don't consider Japan the good guy victim and America the bad guy bully.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It is no use trying to deal with trolls.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Operation_Downfall.pdf

I am no troll. My pointing out the horrendous flaws in all that trash that both you and I grew up with does not make me a troll. I have opened my eyes. You haven't.

A key problem with this discussion is that people think we are just talking about war. We are not! We are talking about mass murder!

It makes no more sense to categorize the A-bombings and firebombings as just a part of war than the death camps and the Holocaust. And if I tried to do that I would get much the same response as I have dealt here.

ArmandV, you have answered the question of who came up with that estimate. But you did not answer how except for that bit about large scale participation by Japanese civilians. I am not sure what they would fight with, except, again, bamboo spears.

But do you know what the massive hole in that assumption about civilians is? Once a person picks up a weapon and turns it at a military, they are no longer civilians. They are combatants. And the deaths of combatants cannot be compared to innocent civilians sitting at home. My sympathy for combatants is much more limited. Combatants do not include babies.

Mind though, there is absolutely no guarantee that even that the populous would have gone guerilla on us or even for very long. In fact, I don't think it would have happened. Surrender was imminent. The administration knew this.

And if ordinary Japanese decided to fight the American invasion, that is their choice. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no choice. They were just flat out murdered.

 

[alecgraham]

(Zorro wrote) It makes no more sense to categorize the A-bombings and firebombings as just a part of war than the death camps and the Holocaust. And if I tried to do that I would get much the same response as I have dealt here.

I disagree with the first statement above. The firebombings and, after a Japanese surrender did not come, the atomic bombs were a show of force that effectively ended the war. They can be a part of war.

The death camps were created by the Germans, the original aggressors -- apologies to def -- not as a threat to stop a war, but as an attempt at systematic genocide. The camps were only rumored to have existed for a very long time. Not only were they not a display for the Allies, they were pretty much hidden from the public eye.

As publicly fearsome and destructive as the bombing campaigns were, the Americans' goal was never to wipe out the Japanese race.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Mass murder is mass murder no matter what excuses are made for it.
The Nazis blamed their problems on the Jews (and gypsys and others) and so killed them. The Americans pretty much blamed the lack of surrender on the innocent inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so killed them (based on your thoughts, not mine).
The way I see it, Truman wanted to test his new weapon and knew it was not necessary. And I am not whistling Dixie.

'I was a little fearful,' Stimson told Truman, 'that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength.' To this the President 'laughed and said he understood.'[67]

From "a continuation of previous behavior" Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the atomic bombs were a show of force that effectively ended the war.

As I said before, the last aerial combat between Japanese and American aircraft was on Aug 18, nine days after Nagasaki.
I admit that the A bombings were a factor to ending the war, but to say "effectively ended the war" is a gross mischaractization.
The Japanese were preparing to surrender, and this was known through diplomatic messages between Russia's ambassador Molotov and Japan's ambassador Sato. These messages were intecepted and decoded and Truman knew of them. They only wanted one condition to the surrender, and despite all this misleading talk of the demand for unconditional the Japanese were given that condition; preservation of the emperor.

They can be a part of war.

Only in the sense that we study about it as an even of WWII, the exact same thing we do with the Holocaust.

 

[alecgraham]

Mass murder is mass murder no matter what excuses are made for it.

The Nazis blamed their problems on the Jews and so killed them. The Americans pretty much blamed the lack of surrender on the innocent inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so killed them (based on your thoughts, not mine).

Um, no, I did not say that they blamed the lack of surrender on the Japanese civilians. I never said that.

The way I see it, Truman wanted to test his new weapon and knew it was not necessary.

Perhaps you see something that most people don't.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Um, no, I did not say that they blamed the lack of surrender on the Japanese civilians. I never said that.

You are right. You didn't. I based what I said on your surrounding thoughts. Japan would not surrender you say. So the Americans threatened then killed innocent people to force surrender. That is what you said. So I will let you choose what that means: 1) America blamed the innocents for Japan's failure to surrender and so felt no shame in killing them to get surrender or 2) America did not blame them at all, but just murdered them to get its way and should but don't feel shame.
Frankly, I thought I was being generous.

Perhaps you see something that most people don't.

I was afraid that charge might come, so I edited the post to include a quote from Henry Stimson.

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 ----------

From the same link above:

A further argument, discussed under the rubric of "atomic diplomacy" and advanced in a 1965 book of that name by Gar Alperovitz, is that the bombings had as primary purpose to intimidate the Soviet Union, being the opening shots of the Cold War.[144

Also it is well known that cities that made the list of potential A-bomb targets were those so far untouched by bombings. Reason: to test the effectiveness.

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were lab rats.

Further note that America could pick and choose its targets so much as to be concerned with such fringe details. The only other considerations were weather. Its just madness to say that when someone can attack with such utter impunity that they had to slaughter more innocents to get surrender.

Again, Eisenhower, Leahy, MacArthur and Nimitz agree. They were soldiers. Its pretty much pure politicians coming up with excuses.

 

[alecgraham]

You are right. You didn't. I based what I said on your surrounding thoughts. Japan would not surrender you say. So the Americans threatened then killed innocent people to force surrender. That is what you said. So I will let you choose what that means: 1) America blamed the innocents for Japan's failure to surrender and so felt no shame in killing them to get surrender or 2) America did not blame them at all, but just murdered them to get its way and should but don't feel shame.

Gee thanks, Zorro. So, after making something up and attributing it as being based on my thoughts, and getting called on it, you custom-make two choices and think I'm going to go for one of them. This is a fundamental problem with the way you debate. When I say that Iran wants its empire back, you don't care to tease out of me what I have read or learned. You respond with, "So you're a mind reader now?"

Frankly, I thought I was being generous.

No, you were just being the usual Zorro, which is why I'm done posting in this thread. Please don't interpret that as victory (or do, if you please, but I don't see it that way). The thread has run its course as far as I'm concerned.

I was afraid that charge might come, so I edited the post to include a quote from Henry Stimson.

Ah, but you didn't mention what James Maddox had to say about Stimson's claims, and it was Stimson who was speaking for Eisenhower, et al. Nice try, though.
I'll give you the last word.

 

[BrianLewis]

Relatively few are still alive from WWII and I doubt seriously anyone is left from the WWI era. That said, I don't believe that successive generations should be held responsible for what their ancestors did. You can only place blame if those alive today if they attempt to recreate mistakes in history. That's the only way I would not forgive someone for sins of the past.

 

[Glenski]

The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombings, and the core reason was Russia's entry into the war.

Can you provide some documented support for the fact that Japan was "ready to surrender"? I mean, it took not one, but 2 A-bombs before they did. That seems a bit stubborn to be called "ready".

I most definitely think Japan committed war crimes and atrocities in World War II and the years leading up to it. They shall not be forgotten. But I won't use them as an excuse for America's actions either. Civilians. What was the population like of Hiroshima like? San Diego? Cleveland? Would their ever be an excuse Americans could ever accept if two of its cities were wiped off the map? Many Americans are still bitter about Pearl Harbour.

STILL bitter? Think about how they felt at that moment when 2,402 civilians were killed. Yes, civilians.

We all must sit back and pause here, too, and realize that armchair philosophy by us and the military/politicians at the time is almost a waste of time for the simple reason that it was a VERY different climate at that time. America entered the war very late, so it had heard so much prior to Pearl Harbor, and people were already getting their news about the war. Different times. Twenty-twenty hindsight is not something I choose to engage in, either. You want to know how people feel NOW? Ok, go with that. I think you'll find that except for oldsters who were alive in WWII or have parents that were in it, not a lot of people know enough to have a valid debate.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Gee thanks, Zorro. So, after making something up and attributing it as being based on my thoughts, and getting called on it, you custom-make two choices and think I'm going to go for one of them. This is a fundamental problem with the way you debate. When I say that Iran wants its empire back, you don't care to tease out of me what I have read or learned. You respond with, "So you're a mind reader now?"

I extrapolated based on the information you provided on a historical point that has a lot of documentation.

Iran is today and there is no hindsight and nothing to base such an opinion on. It was not my intent to rile you up. Its just that to know that Iran wants its empire back, like in a way that is significant to world politics, you have to read minds.

Sorry if my presentation is obtuse. Hell, I have caught myself doing the same thing and trying to divine intents where its just not possible. But I see only two choices when it comes to what you wrote, correct me if there is a third.

No, you were just being the usual Zorro, which is why I'm done posting in this thread. Please don't interpret that as victory (or do, if you please, but I don't see it that way). The thread has run its course as far as I'm concerned.

I am sorry to see you go, and no, there is no victory until American history classes stop trying to whitewash the murder of civilians. Your leaving is not a victory to me at all.

Ah, but you didn't mention what James Maddox had to say about Stimson's claims, and it was Stimson who was speaking for Eisenhower, et al. Nice try, though.
I'll give you the last word.

I don't know what you are getting at. But my ears are open.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Can you provide some documented support for the fact that Japan was "ready to surrender"? I mean, it took not one, but 2 A-bombs before they did. That seems a bit stubborn to be called "ready".

You are not going to get anywhere by stubbornly holding onto the belief that it was two A-bombs that ended the war, cause when you say it took 2 A-bombs, that is sure what it sounds like.

In fact, its up to you to provide some documentation that the Japanese decided to call it quits because of the A-bomb. Good luck with that hunt. Sans that information, what is your reason to believe the bombs ended the war? That its been repeated a million times? That the dates of the bombs and the surrender are close?

There were other events going on, and I have already provided proof of that. I have also explained why they hold more significance to the Japanese. They were fanatical. So many did not care about dying. That is evidenced by mass suicides rather than surrender, kamikaze, suicide banzai charges, and enduring indiscriminate fire bombing for months. What is nuke or two, or ten to people like that?

What the people in charge cared about was the emperor, full stop. The only surrender condition they asked for was preservation of the emperor. They had good reason to believe the Soviets would not allow that. So they surrendered to the western powers.

I already spoke of this in the documented messages between ambassadors Molotov and Sato.

And there is this:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.

Nimitz is correct. The Japanese sued for peace, but would not surrender unconditionally. Why would the allies not accept conditional surrender when they gave them that one condition about the emperor anyway? Somebody explain that one please.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[23] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; at this point the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender."

 

[Mark of Zorro]

STILL bitter? Think about how they felt at that moment when 2,402 civilians were killed. Yes, civilians.

I am refraining from my previous use of certain terms. 57 civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor. Most of them were on the base, a place no civilian should ever set foot lest he rightly be confused for a combatant. Most killed off the base were killed by American AA fire.

You can accuse the Japanese of attacking Pearl without a declaration of war. But you cannot accuse them of intentionally targeting civilians there, not by a long shot.

Just trying to characterize uniformed military personnel as civilians is a darned good reason for me to start using profanity again.

We all must sit back and pause here, too, and realize that armchair philosophy by us and the military/politicians at the time is almost a waste of time for the simple reason that it was a VERY different climate at that time.

I never heard anyone try to label the military casualties of Pearl as civilian before, but this is a tired old canard. Its ALWAYS a different time. No sorry, right is right and wrong is wrong. You don't need it written on paper that its dead wrong to murder civilians. But it was on paper even then. I already mentioned several men who were leaders of their time decrying the A-bombings. Add to them Einstein, Oppenheimer and Szilard.

America entered the war very late, so it had heard so much prior to Pearl Harbor, and people were already getting their news about the war. Different times. Twenty-twenty hindsight is not something I choose to engage in, either.

The only 20/20 hindsight going on is that we now know a lot of things that Truman knew that we did not know while we were being brainwashed in our American history classes.

You want to know how people feel NOW? Ok, go with that. I think you'll find that except for oldsters who were alive in WWII or have parents that were in it, not a lot of people know enough to have a valid debate.

I don't much care how they feel or felt about murdering civilians. It was wrong then and will always be wrong. Add to that it being unnecessary.

We are not talking about the war itself. As far as that goes, I do sympathize with them. But there is no sympathizing with anyone trying to justify a crime against humanity, I don't care how many random excuses they dredge up and how many facts they try to ignore.

 

[Glenski]

I concede what you meant earlier about being "ready". I see what you meant: conditional surrender.

Just a thought, though...

" it is clear that Hirohito did not disapprove of the attacks in China or the invasion of Manchuria in the 1930s. It is also clear that he approved the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, as well as many of the subsequent military actions that followed this declaration of war against the United States. When the quick victory promised by his advisers didn't happen, he became critical against his advisers, leading to the removal of Prime Minister Tojo in 1944. Even after the fall of Okinawa , Hirohito, who wanted to negotiate a surrender, refused to force his council to do so.

Only after the dropping of the atom bombs in 1945 did Hirohito convene the Supreme Council. After a long debate, Hirohito finally personally intervened and said he could no longer bear to watch his people suffer. Six days later, on August 15, 1945, the Japanese people heard the Hirohito's voice for the first time on the radio as he announced Japan's surrender."
Emperor Hirohito & WWII


And, this account (too long to copy/paste here) shows how not all military were for or against the bomb, and that there could have been 2 or more reasons for doing it (to impress the Russians, for one, but mainly to avoid millions of other deaths).

Some have described the U.S. as having been motivated by the Soviet Union scheduled to enter the war against Japan. Some have described the U.S. as wanting to explode the A-bomb in front of the Russians to impress and instill in the Russians a greater fear of the U.S. Why the U.S. was unwilling to wait longer for the Japanese remains unknown.

I think my underlined part is very important. Very.

The "dithering" of the Japanese between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is a classical and tactical error on their part, probably due to their inability to make a group decision quickly.
Emperor Hirohito Speaks to His Nation about Surrender

And, then there are Truman's feelings, as espoused here (note the underlined):
"Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives.

The President rejected a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese leadership. He knew there was no guarantee the Japanese would surrender if the test succeeded, and he felt that a failed demonstration would be worse than none at all. Even the scientific community failed to foresee the awful effects of radiation sickness. Truman saw little difference between atomic bombing Hiroshima and fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo.

The ethical debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. "
The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

I don't much care how they feel or felt about murdering civilians.

Really? Then you just lost this one big time. You can't have it both ways, and that's exactly what the above statement seems to suggest. Bye!

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I concede what you meant earlier about being "ready". I see what you meant: conditional surrender.

Right. I should have been more clear. I often forget that people hang onto unconditional surrender as the only option. Its frustrating, but seems most people do it, just because the "unconditional surrender" mantra has been repeated over and over. There was ZERO reason to demand unconditional surrender, or at least no reason that was sane, just, or productive for the average person.

Really? Then you just lost this one big time. You can't have it both ways, and that's exactly what the above statement seems to suggest. Bye!

No idea what you want to say. It does not matter how people FEEL about killing civilians on purpose. What matters is that its DEAD WRONG not matter how anyone feels.

 

[nahadef]

The death camps were created by the Germans, the original aggressors -- apologies to def -- not as a threat to stop a war, but as an attempt at systematic genocide.

I have no understanding of why I was referenced here...

 

[alecgraham]

Oh, sorry about that. Simply because you don't like the 'they started it' aspect.