Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The A-Bombs
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 31 of 52 (94478)
03-24-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Loudmouth
03-24-2004 2:02 PM


Loudmouth,
I'm not sure I understand your point. If the Emperor represented the hawkish regime of Imperial Japan, why bother exempting him from being tried as a war criminal? Why was his status of no concern to the Allies at the end of July, if they were going to afford him special treatment anyway after the bombs were dropped?
I'm not claiming that Hirohito wasn't a war criminal. By most accounts, he participated in the planning of some key military events before and during the war. He was at least aware of, and some even say active in, the planning of the Pearl Harbor attack. He made few attempts to rid the Japanese cabinet of the hawks who would later oppose surrender when even he considered it inevitable.
Hirohito was seen as a God by the Japanese people, including those in the government. The call for unconditional surrender was a godsend to those hawks who insisted on prolonging the war: they realized that it was unacceptable to surrender if the Emperor's status may be threatened. And according to Secretary of War Stimson and his Assistant Secretary of War McGrew, this point had been made repeatedly to President Truman and Secretary of State Byrnes.
It seems that the Potsdam Declaration was less a call for surrender and more a green light for the use of atomic weapons against the Japanese.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 03-24-2004 2:02 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 52 (94557)
03-24-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by MrHambre
03-24-2004 6:10 AM


MrHambre, there were several detailed operation for teh invasion of Japan. The overal operation was called "Operation Downfall". It was to consist of two major amphibious invasions that would have dwarfed anything prior. The first invasion was to be codenamed "operation Olympic" which was to be an invasion of Kyushu, and the second was "Operation Coronet", which would have targeted Honshu. The two operations called for a combined invasion force of some 15 divisions, 40 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and over 300 destoyers and destoyer escourts. There was also a side operation, " Operation Pastel" , which was supposed to try and deceive teh japanese about where we would attack. The two figures for casualiteis were at polar ends of each other. One, which was used to support the invasion plan, only estimated around 125,000 causualities ( about a quarter of those deaths). Those in the military that supported dropping the bomb cited a estimate of over 1,000,000 causalites or more, for invasion, with japenese causlaties everal times that figure.
Do search on any of those operations, you should find plenty of resources. army.mil had a nice synopsis on Operation pastel, if you want to read it. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/...esources/csi/huber2/huber2.asp#v
An intersting note, the japanese had already heavily fortified both locations, and the resulting battles would probably have approached the higher of the two battle estimates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by MrHambre, posted 03-24-2004 6:10 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 33 of 52 (129850)
08-02-2004 5:42 PM


A-Bump
Since it's early August, we're going to be hearing about the "bombs that won WWII" all over again. It's always been my contention that the A-bombs were not necessary to win WWII. I'm not addressing the decision to drop the atomic bombs on any other basis than whether they were necessary to defeat the Japanese.
I always plug Doug Long's exhaustive website as well as Gar Alperovitz's book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, in appreciation for the help they've been in my research into the history of the A-bombs and people's misperceptions of what the conditions were during that time.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 52 (129867)
08-02-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by MrHambre
08-05-2003 7:03 AM


Mr Hambre,
I think the bombs should have been dropped. It's the where & how that is the issue for me. It was possible even then to drop the bomb from such an altitude over Tokyo that the blast would have rattled windows & little more. People survived mere hundreds of meters away from the epicentre (if that's the correct terminology) provided they were shielded from the flash & blast. The radioactive fallout, as I understand it, wasn't a great factor in the death toll. It could even have been possible to arrange a demonstration somewhere uninhabited. That, of course, required Japanese cooperation.
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the militants staged a nearly successful coup in order to continue the war after the bombs had been dropped, & also the fact it took TWO bombs dropped on cities before the Japanese surrendered.
Hindsight is 20/20, nevertheless, I think there could have been just as effective displays of power without the attendant loss of life.
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 4 by MrHambre, posted 08-05-2003 7:03 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by MrHambre, posted 08-02-2004 9:58 PM mark24 has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 52 (129872)
08-02-2004 8:53 PM


I usually tend to stay away from political discussions because I don't devote a great deal of time studying the issues and I'm often not aware of all the relevant circumstances. However, in recent ("PC"?) discussions of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings I notice one circumstance seems to receive barely more than passing mention.
Before commenting on said circumstance, however, I want to make it very clear that the citizens of modern Japan (some of whom I have been fortunate to call personal friends), are in no way responsible or accountable for the unfortunate tragedies that occurred during the 2nd great war.
With this ever in mind, I nevertheless think it should not be under-emphasized that, regardless of the severity of the response, there would have been no response had there not been a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor.
JMHO,
Amlodhi

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-02-2004 9:12 PM Amlodhi has replied

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


Message 36 of 52 (129874)
08-02-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Amlodhi
08-02-2004 8:53 PM


there would have been no response had there not been a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor.
While that is likely true, we need to keep in mind that Pearl Harbor was a military target and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were civilian targets.
One definition of "terrorism" I've heard repeatedly is "a military or para-military attack on a civilian target".
Following this logic, the US responded to a military attack with one of the greatest acts of terrorism in history. (As a comparison to the 9/11 attacks, more US citizens and allies in Japan were killed as a result of the A-bombs than the total death toll of 9/11).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Amlodhi, posted 08-02-2004 8:53 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-02-2004 10:09 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 39 by Amlodhi, posted 08-03-2004 1:59 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

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


Message 37 of 52 (129879)
08-02-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mark24
08-02-2004 8:13 PM


Mark24,
Hindsight is much weaker than 20/20, as demonstrated by people's willingness to see what they want to see in the events of the past. In fact, the hawks (War Minister Anami in particular) who sent troops to the Imperial Palace to prevent Hirohito giving the order to surrender knew what the Allies had known all along: the only thing that would force the Japanese to surrender was the command of the Emperor. When, in fact, Hirohito gave the order, even Anami complied. Then he went home and committed ritual suicide.
The realization that the Japanese were done for, and the understanding that they would not surrender without explicit reassurances that the Emperor would be retained is what made the Allies call for unconditional surrender. The Japanese refusal to accept the surrender was the Allies' excuse for carrying out atomic testing on a defeated civilian populace.
If the Japanese had surrendered after one bomb was dropped, or both bombs were dropped, you may have had a point. However, the truth is that the Japanese only surrendered after (and immediately after) the Emperor commanded it. That happened an entire week after the first bomb was detonated.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 08-02-2004 8:13 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 5:41 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 52 (129883)
08-02-2004 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by pink sasquatch
08-02-2004 9:12 PM


If you look at the battle tactics of ww2, entire cities in both the european theatre and in the pacific were destroyed. With the introduction of carpet bombing and the accompanying fire storms, the civilian casualties were enormous. The bombing of tokyo by conventional means caused enormous destruction nearly the equal of an atomic weapon. As for your whitewashing of history , you may want to look into some of the documentaries of Japan's development and use of biological weaponry against teh chinese. Specifically, they used infected mosiqutos to spread malaria across large areas of china in order to weaken and kill as much of the populace as possible. As for your personal opinion of what constitutes terrorism, I think you have a very skewed picture, especially in this context. If you think that all war equal bloodshed and terror, which it does, you would have a point. However, 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-02-2004 9:12 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-03-2004 10:34 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 52 (129934)
08-03-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by pink sasquatch
08-02-2004 9:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by pink sasquatch
While that is likely true, we need to keep in mind that Pearl Harbor was a military target and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were civilian targets.
Your point is well taken and, as I said, I don't pretend to be aware of all the circumstances. However, I remain of the opinion that in our present PC world, far too much attention is focused on the nature of a given response instead of the act of aggression that provoked that response. Sometimes a response may be overly severe or misplaced, but it remains that you would not have suffered that reaction were it not for the ill-intent of your own action.
"Though I am not, by nature, rash or splenetic; yet there is in me something dangerous, that let thy wisdom fear."
Hamlet, William Shakespeare
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-03-2004 01:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-02-2004 9:12 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 3:26 AM Amlodhi has not replied

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


Message 40 of 52 (129954)
08-03-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Amlodhi
08-03-2004 1:59 AM


Amlodhi,
I don't see what's so PC or revisionist about trying to gauge the necessity for using atomic weapons to end WWII. I'm sure one of the things that made it so easy to excuse the use of the new war tecnology was the knowledge of not only the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, but also their atrocities in Nanking, Manchuria, Burma, Bataan, the Philippines, and throughout the South Pacific.
One of the criticisms leveled at the Truman administration, not by pacifist Pollyannas but by various Allied military leaders like MacArthur and Eisenhower, was that by the summer of 1945 Truman and his Secretary of State Byrnes couldn't grasp that they had diplomatic options as well as military ones. The costly Allied military victory at Okinawa was decisive enough to have given Truman an opportunity to end the war swiftly. His decision to remove verbiage concerning the Emperor in the Potsdam Declaration that would have allowed the Japanese to surrender and retain its figurehead can be seen as one of two things: a massive diplomatic blunder that only prolonged the agonizing endgame, or a measure calculated to allow the US to test atomic weapons on the Japanese under the pretext that Truman had no other conceivable options.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Amlodhi, posted 08-03-2004 1:59 AM Amlodhi has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 41 of 52 (129967)
08-03-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by MrHambre
08-02-2004 9:58 PM


MrHambre,
If the Japanese had surrendered after one bomb was dropped, or both bombs were dropped, you may have had a point. However, the truth is that the Japanese only surrendered after (and immediately after) the Emperor commanded it. That happened an entire week after the first bomb was detonated.
You misunderstand my point, which was that the bombs should have been dropped in a display of power, just not on cities. And in fact the Emperors power was on very shaky ground at the end, the hawks openly defied the Emperors command for a short period, but were talked around in the end.
So I ultimately agree the Emperors command was key, it would have taken the civil administration much longer to come to a majority decision, if they ever would, but it's just not as simple as that. Hirohito was expected to, & was indeed brought up to, "reign, not rule". Hence his reluctance to get involved in the politics of his country. It's worth remembering that Hirohito was against the decision to go to war in the first place, & could have avoided it in a sentence. As such, any event like dropping the bombs would always involve a flurry of activity by the hawks & doves that would take time to occur. Hirohito would not act without hearing out both camps. But ultimately the bombs did cause Hirohito to issue his "bear the unbearable" speech, & therefore the bombs were instrumental in the capitulation of Japan.
In my view it could have been achieved with far less loss of life.
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 37 by MrHambre, posted 08-02-2004 9:58 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 7:07 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 42 of 52 (129969)
08-03-2004 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mark24
08-03-2004 5:41 AM


Mark24 says:
quote:
But ultimately the bombs did cause Hirohito to issue his "bear the unbearable" speech, & therefore the bombs were instrumental in the capitulation of Japan.
I disagree with this. Remember, the second bomb was dropped on 9 August. Japan's requests to Secretary of State Byrnes on 10 August still focused on the issue of the Emperor. It was not until 14 August that Byrnes clarified the Allied position: the Emperor's fate was in the hands of the Supreme Allied Commander. Since MacArthur had always been outspoken in opposing unconditional surrender and in asserting that Hirohito's support would be indispensible in rebuilding Japan, the Emperor gave the order to surrender that very day.
I don't doubt that the Allies always intended to allow the Japanese to retain their Emperor anyway, so why not clarify that at the outset? If it was so important to have an unconditional surrender, why eventually allow the Japanese to stipulate even one condition? Simple, the atomic testing was done, and that was the only reason for the delay in the first place.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 5:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 8:03 AM MrHambre has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 52 (129971)
08-03-2004 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by MrHambre
08-03-2004 7:07 AM


Hi MrHambre,
I disagree with this. Remember, the second bomb was dropped on 9 August.
And that is the date the meeting was convened where (I believe the meeting went on into the 10th) Hirohito accepted Togo's view that the Potsdam Declaration be accepted, with the proviso that kokutai (Japanese national essence) could be maintained. The meeting was convened the same day as the second bomb was dropped.
I maintain that it was the A-bombs that provided the jolt necessary that would lead to to the surrender. The point is that the offer of surrender was agreed immediately after the second bomb fell.
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 42 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 7:07 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 8:34 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 44 of 52 (129972)
08-03-2004 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mark24
08-03-2004 8:03 AM


Mark24 states:
quote:
The point is that the offer of surrender was agreed immediately after the second bomb fell. [emphasis in original]
This is demonstrably untrue. Certainly Togo, Suzuki, and Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal Kido had been looking for a way to negotiate peace for months. Togo and Hirohito met even before the Nagasaki detonation to make plans to get the Japanese government to make a counter-offer to the Allies. However, on 14 August both the Cabinet and the Big Six met and were still deadlocked on the subject of surrender. As I've said many times, when Hirohito was assured by Byrnes that his position was secure, he gave the order to surrender. This was on 14 August.
I'm certainly not saying that the A-bombs didn't influence the decision-making of japanese officials. But by that time, the damage had been done: the call for unconditional surrender (which the Allies knew would be rejected by the Japanese, since Suzuki himself had said so in a speech on 9 June) had steeled the hawks to resist ending the war for as long as it would take for the Allies to concede their demands.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
[edited to add: The meetings of the Supreme War Council (the "Big Six") and the Cabinet actually took place on 13 August, not 14 August, according to information on Doug Long's website.]
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-03-2004 11:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 8:03 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 10:23 AM MrHambre has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 52 (129984)
08-03-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by MrHambre
08-03-2004 8:34 AM


MrHambre,
This is demonstrably untrue.
No, it is demonstrably true.
Hirohito's words on the meeting that convened 9th August: "I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home & abroad & have concluded that continuing the war means destruction for the nation & a prolongation of bloodshed & cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer. Ending the war is the only way to restore world peace & to relieve the nation from the terrible distress with which it is burdened.
It pains me, to think of those who served so faithfully, the soldiers & sailors who have been killed or wounded in far-off battles, the families who have lost all their worldly goods - & often their lives as well - in the air raids at home. It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave & loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war.
Nevertheless, the time has come when we must bear the unbearable. When I recall the feelings of my Imperial Grandsire, the Emperor Meiji, at the time of the triple Intervention, I swallow my own tears & give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister."
Suzuki - "His Majesties decision should now be made the unanimous decision of the conference."
The entire cabinet signed. (The Rising Sun - Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945 by John Toland, Chapter 35 pp810-813)
Thus the Potsdam Proclamation was accepted by Hirohito & his entire cabinet with the proviso (of Togo's design, not Hirohito's) that the Emperor be retained, at a meeting convened on August 9th 1945, the day Nagasaki was bombed, ending in the early hours of 10th August.
Hirohito expressed the need for surrender to his cabinet on the same day Nagasaki was bombed (or at the very least the meeting began that day). The terms agreed by the cabinet were the actual terms that they got. The weakness of my argument is that the Soviet's invaded Manchuria around about then, as well, which by all accounts seemed to have rattled the Japanese leadership somewhat.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 08-03-2004 10:15 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 8:34 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by MrHambre, posted 08-03-2004 12:13 PM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024