Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The A-Bombs
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 46 of 52 (129985)
08-03-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Darwin Storm
08-02-2004 10:09 PM


If you think that all war equal bloodshed and terror, which it does, you would have a point.
So I dohave a point? What are you saying here?
Or perhaps more to the point - how would you define 'terrorism'?
As for your whitewashing of history,...
I never said that the actions of the Japanese leadership and military were honorable or good.
your statement seems to indicate a specific and biased viewpoint which seems more intent on making a poor political statement than dealing with the historical facts.
That's a bit much - I wish I knew what political statement I was so intent on making - perhaps you could explain my intent to me?
I was simply responding to the oft-cited logic that because of the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan somehow deserved to have two cities and (I believe) over a hundred thousand civilian lives destroyed.
That is neither logical nor ethical.
The fact that carpet and fire bombings were routine in WWII does not make them ethical, either. If such methods were ethical, the US would currently not be so intent on the use of targeted weapons to avoid wholesale destruction.
I'm sure a contemporary example will make you wince since you are arguing historical context, but what the hell:
If in response to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam had destroyed two major US cities without warning, say with the use of nuclear 'suitcase' bombs, the US would scream "terrorism!"
How is it different? The hypothetical Saddam wanted to force the US leadership to capitulate, without risking further Iraqi lives...
I do not believe that the furthering of military goals should include the murdering of 'enemy' civilians, regardless of the atrocities committed by one's enemies. When such acts are committed, they are atrocities in themselves. Thus I also would never support the wholesale destruction of any city, since the civilian casualties are far beyond unavoidable collateral damage.
Did the US have no other viable alternatives? Others on this thread seem to believe alternatives existed.
I agree that the intentional spreading of malaria through China was an atrocity. However, was the US response, a double-city-holocaust, morally correct or even logically justified?
What, specifically, prevents the use of atomic weapons from also being labeled an atrocity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-02-2004 10:09 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-03-2004 11:58 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 47 of 52 (130009)
08-03-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by mark24
08-03-2004 10:23 AM


mark24,
There actually was more debate in the Cabinet than that passage by Toland suggests:
On [August] 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - (War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).
Later that day [i.e., 13 August] the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body - not the Big 6, not even the Emperor - that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208(43n)). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).
This is from Doug Long's website. The references are to Leon Sigal's Fighting to the Finish and Robert Butow's Japan's Decision To Surrender. Toland himself (p. 939) claims the Cabinet did not agree to the Allied terms until the 14th.
There seems to have been a very complicated tangle of motivations within the Japanese government, but the Allied command realized it was just a matter of time. Again, I'm not saying that the A-bombs didn't influence Hirohito's decision, but neither did they cause immediate capitulation. The Emperor's wishes for an acceptable surrender were well known by July 1945. If the Potsdam Proclamation had made it clear that Hirohito's status was secure, there may have been no need to drop the bombs. Remember, it was Suzuki himself who refused to even consider the Proclamation because of its strong language concerning Japan's leaders (presumably the Emperor), and he was not among the hawks in the Japanese government. The demands for which even the hard-liners were holding out don't seem outrageous: retention of the Emperor, Japan disarms itself, and no occupying force.
The questions remain, were the bombs really a last resort for the Allies, or was there a vested interest involved in delaying the Japanese surrender?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 10:23 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 5:40 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 48 of 52 (130093)
08-03-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by MrHambre
08-03-2004 12:13 PM


MrHambre,
There seems to have been a very complicated tangle of motivations within the Japanese government, but the Allied command realized it was just a matter of time. Again, I'm not saying that the A-bombs didn't influence Hirohito's decision, but neither did they cause immediate capitulation.
Then we agree.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 12:13 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 52 (130198)
08-03-2004 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by pink sasquatch
08-03-2004 10:34 AM


Terrorism is one of thost pop phrases that have been used so often it has lot alot of impact, other than to denigrate an action with a label. Originally, it was used to apply to certain acts of violence which were desgined to draw media attention to a particular cause or group. Since then, its defenitions have broadened to include any form of violence for which people don't agree with. I am not saying that horrible actions dont occur regularly, and that they may inspire terror, but I think the use of the term terrorism is a worn out. Its definitions are so broad that it could be applied to any form of violence. I would define terrorism as a label people use to simplify and ostrize various forms of violence.
As for your original statement
Following this logic, the US responded to a military attack with one of the greatest acts of terrorism in history.
First, you imply that the use of nuclear weapons was based only on the attack of Pearl Harbor, and glossed over the several years of continual combat between the two nations. A gross oversimplification. Secondly, I would argue that WW2, as a whole, constitued the most bloody, least ethical (if you can find any ehtical war), and most destructive event in human history. I am not arguing the point of the ethical use of the atomic weapon any more than I would argue the ethical use of any means of mass murder. War inherentaly is about the destruction of life and property, and has always claimed far more innocent lives than than the lives of soldiers. In context, your opinion that the atomic bombs represented some special unique horror is absurd. The means of death may have been novel, but the results and scale were no worse than many of the atrocities of ww2 by all sides.
As for "deserving" to be bombed, in war, the goal of both sides is to subjegate the enemy by any an all means. It has nothing to do with one or another nation "deserving" to be attacked. Heck, there are many people in the world who thing the US desrved to be attacked like we were in 9/11. Agreement or disagreement with that sentiment doesn't change the end result of what happened. I guess I simply disagree with your particular view that the use of the bomb was a special atrocity any more than the firebombing of dresden, or the german v2 attacks on britain, etc. I hold that all war is based on atrocity.
In regards to the use of the atomic weapons, their use was tragic, but as I stated previously, hardly unique other than the novelty of their method of destruction.
I do not believe that the furthering of military goals should include the murdering of 'enemy' civilians, regardless of the atrocities committed by one's enemies. When such acts are committed, they are atrocities in themselves. Thus I also would never support the wholesale destruction of any city, since the civilian casualties are far beyond unavoidable collateral damage.
While I might agree with your personal view in this regards, our personal opinions hardly change the circumstance of previous wars. There are great many things I find atrocious in history, outside of war, which were deemed acceptable at the time. The best we can do is understand the context of that time, learn from the mistakes made, and try to not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-03-2004 10:34 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-04-2004 2:38 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 50 of 52 (130231)
08-04-2004 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Darwin Storm
08-03-2004 11:58 PM


DS, you reply is frustrating, namely because you spend your entire message responding to things I never stated.
your opinion that the atomic bombs represented some special unique horror is absurd...
I simply disagree with your particular view that the use of the bomb was a special atrocity...
...the use of the atomic weapons, their use was tragic, but as I stated previously, hardly unique...
Not once did I state that the use of the atomic bombs was different than any other atrocity (unless you can show me where I did so), yet you argue against that throughout your post.
The rest of the post is similarly arguing against misconception, especially if you read my previous posts in the context of the thread I was responding to.
As far as my definition of terrorism, I was told that was the US military definition by someone I trust in the US military - admittedly I have not checked for a primary military source on that.
Actually, when you weren't arguing against things I didn't say, you were basically reiterating the content of my previous posts...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-03-2004 11:58 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-04-2004 1:33 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 52 (130313)
08-04-2004 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by pink sasquatch
08-04-2004 2:38 AM


Perhaps I had some misconceptions about your statement. Rereading your post, I find it mostly stems from your definition of terrorism, and the following statement based on it. However, I see the following statment was just you extending the definition you gave to that particular event. My point is that the term is so vague that it can be applied to nearly any form of violence with which we find objectable and has little real meaning.
As far as I know, there is no official army definition of terrorism, at least I never heard one while serving in the army. Meriam-Webster's dictionary mearly defines it as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coersion. Again, the use of the term is so vague that it has little meaning beyond used as a label of personal judgment. Sorry about all the fuss over semantics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-04-2004 2:38 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 52 of 52 (315172)
05-25-2006 4:51 PM


just my two cents . . .
The only one of the major allied powers who had the same delegate at the Potsdam Conference was Russia. FDR was dead, and Churchill wasn't relected, and only stalin remained of the original trio. Consequently, he broke many promises made to the other two when Truman came into the scene, and something tells me Potsdam got screwed up becuase of the new leaders.
Secondly, if I remember correctly, the A-bomb was to be used against Germany. The only problem, was that Germany surrenered before they were ready. And then, we were looking at a land invasion of the Japanese homeland--which would inevitably be a costly procedure, no matter the figure you go by for casuality figures. While the bomb itself wasn't necessary to end the war, it did help bring it to an end a little bit sooner.
I might have more later, need to clarify my thoughts.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024