Atomic Bomb: Justified?

hehe again...

(the "this thread was going fine" line... does that include the enlightening graphics?)

Funny thing is, while Knight obviously can't back up an argument (or rather, a ridiculous generalization) with anything resembling evidence...

Stevin thinks about it and comes up with something interesting!

[ 16 October 2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

all quotes: UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War) WASHINGTON, D.C.
JULY 1946

Which may defend the fact that Japan had a desire for surrender. But mainly it shows the inability of the leaders to come to a common agreement. Thus war continued and propaganda continued to be pumped into the populous and soldiers to telling them fight on for themselves, Japan's culture, and future.

This in no way shows or prooves the military was against using the bomb. The conclusion is not fact and is a theory. Who knows how long the military contingent of the government would have held out against surender if a shocking event such as the atomic bombs, Russian invasion, or allied invasion had not motivated them to change their minds.

This equates to 150,000 tons of explosives. Being that the 2 bombs had similar destructive power one can assume the tonnage in explosives of the two bombs was approximatly 300,000 tons.

In theory if Japan surrendered by the end of December 1945 that would have subjected the populous with well more than the 300,000 tons of explosives of the Atomic bombs. Thus causing much more destruction and death than the Atomic bombs. Not to mention the added extended death toll from the continued blockade due to starvation and disease.

Of course the first part of the invasion of japan was scheduled for November 1st 1945. The combined casualties of both sides civilian and combatants would have been even worse than bombing. But of course...during the invasion the bombing would not have stopped.

It is thus my conclusion that although Japan had thoughts of surrender their leadership's inability to come to a conclusion with military fanatics in power was causing the war to continue until something broke the impass. Without the significant shock of the atomic bombs and Russian invasion to cause the leadership to come to a consensus much more death and destruction would have occured. Thus the Atomic bomb though horrible...prevented considerably more death and destruction to both sides due to it's destructive uniqueness and thus justified.

 

Actually I woudn't say it's BAD, but rather snobish, maybe even arrogant. It's a hell of a differnece if somone else is telling me "Hey, well done, you're sooo good!" and standing up, drumming the chest, saying "Hell look, I'm so good!".

I also think one has all right to be proud of what one schieved himself, but "I'm proud to be a German, because of my own great achievement to be born as a German is enough to be proud of!" or " The great achievemnts done by other fellow Germans now and in history, this is something I can be proud of.", sounds rather stupid to me.

Especially if connected to mass murder.

Cheers,

 

Let's stick to the subject, okay.

It's very difficult to say whatever it was justified or not.

If American and British troops would have been land on the island a lot of men would have been killed.

But in the bombings of the big cities in Japan more people died than in the two atomic bombs. So if they would have continued attacking, it might have not been necessary.

Oh, maybe it was something to scare the Russians not to use an atomic bomb against the Americans some day.

 

2 questions, Andy.

1. Do you think it is wrong in principle to be proud of one's country? And if so what about being proud of one's city or one's family? If so what is one allowed to be proud of?

2. Name a country of significant size that has never been responsible for mass murder.

Between you and me, I hate people who quote Rau's idea because they think it was the politcally correct thing to say. Anybody can say what he likes, but since Rau made that statement half the country is magically of the same opinion. Das geht mir irgendwie gegen den Strich (can't translate that, sorry). It's like "he thinks this, so I must think this too!!" I'm not criticising Rau himself, mind you, at least not for this statement.

 

Correct. These "mitigating conditions" were the Emperor.
Look... you can try and make this thing as complicated, and speculative as you want; but, the simple, unalterable truth to this controversy is that if the United States assured Japan that they could keep their Emperor, the Japanese would have surrendered in July. No one anywhere is disputing this. The above quote pertains to unconditional surrender, which the Japanese were unwilling to accept, and, in the end, did NOT accept.
Like most American historians, you freely confuse our demands for unconditional surrender and the Japanese demands for "conditional" surrender.
The issue of the Emperor was what it was ALL ABOUT. We tried to force them into an unconditional surrender, and they refused--even AFTER the atomic bombings. WE were the ones who gave in.
I do not believe you read my earlier post: the military was not planning on invading: I don't care what "BULL" Halsey had to say. American boys were not going to die so that Japan could be deprived of their Emperor. That was absolutely ridiculous. The military knew the war was over.

 

@1): I'm not proud of having green eyes or being born white and in Germany. I'm proud of many things I did by myself, for myself or for my country or the people living in it. I'm thankful to live in a country like Germany, with all her history good and bad, with all her people good and bad, with all what they did godd or bad. I'm thankful to read, speak, understand what other Germans write or wrote, say, share or disagree with me.

Guess I would be as a thankful to live in Mexico if I would have been born as a Mexican. I would never say that my country is "better" or "the best" in the world, because this implies that I think that other countries are not as good as the one where I was born in. I'd say that I'm thankful to be a German, because I'm a German.

Goethe, Lincoln, Pol Pot, Richard Wagner, Picasso, my Dad, Tschaikovsky, Hitler, Shakespeare, Beckenbauer, Idi Amin, Baader are equally far away from me. It'd be dishonest to "pick" Goethe, Wagner, Beckenbauer or my Dad and say that's the reason why I'm proud of "my" country.

"Patriotism is the love to his own people, Nationalism the hate on other people." (Romain Gary)

@2) Sweden? Greenland? How many centuries did I have to go back to find a dark spot?

Cheers,

[ 17 October 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Well said, Andy. I don't think being "proud" of one's country should have anything to do with other countries.
(You know, proud is a tricky word here. Maybe "thankful" would be more appropriate, at least in my opinion)
It should not be, "I'm proud to be an American because America is the best". For me at least, it's more of a matter of being appreciative of what I (americans in this case, or substitute any other nation) have. Like Andy says, I think thankful is the right word here.
Although, I think one can certainly be proud of some aspects of one's country (again, not in comparison to other countries). BUT- this in turn means one has to also be aware of the things a country has done that do not deserve pride. I'm proud of much of America's history- democratic traditions, American involvement and sacrifices in WW1 and WW2, and much more. But at the same time, I have to acknowledge things like slavery, treatment of native americans, and the Bush presidency- things I'm definetely NOT proud of.
I think the real problem comes when people refuse to acknowledge either aspect of their country- good or bad. If one thinks everything about a certain country is either ALL good or ALL bad, obviously that person is not making a reasoned judgement.

(now Crazy wonders if any of that actually made sense... )

 

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt,Wenn es stets zu Schutz und TrutzeBrüderlich zusammenhält,Von der Maas bis an die Memel,Von der Etsch bis an den Belt
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,Über alles in der Welt.

Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,Deutscher Wein und deutscher SangSollen in der Welt behaltenIhren alten schönen Klang,Uns zu edler Tat begeisternUnser ganzes Leben lang.Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang.

Einigkeit und Recht und FreiheitFür das deutsche Vaterland!Danach laßt uns alle strebenBrüderlich mit Herz und Hand!Einigkeit und Recht und FreiheitSind des Glückes Unterpfand. Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes, Blühe, deutsches Vaterland.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,Und im Unglück nun erst recht.Nur im Unglück kann die LiebeZeigen, ob sie stark und echt.Und so soll es weiterklingenVon Geschlechte zu Geschlecht Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Und im Unglück nun erst recht.

Ius, concordia, libertasPro Germana patria,Haec fraterne nos petamusDextra atque anima!Ius, concordia, libertasSunt salutis pignora,Flore in salutis luceTu, Germana patria!

 

The war over long before July 1945 and the Military knew that. But it isn't up to the military...it was up to Japan.
Ever hear of...hindsight is always 20/20?
The US had every reason to want an end to the war as soon as possible for the US public was starting to show wearyness. Truman and US policy dictated no emporer. When the bombs brought Japan to the table...US policy decided to flex a bit...OK we'll keep the emporer...as long as you promise blah. Besides the US knew the emporer would actually help in calming the populous. But the US also knew that the emporer would only be symbolic and have no real power.
Obviosly you didn't read my comments from before...if we waited for Japan to work things out themselves months would have gone buy, they were in an impass and if the bombs had not brought them to the table many more people would have died from unrelenting firebombing than the two atomic bombs.
Japan was beaten a long time before this...Did they really think they could defeat the US at Okinawa? or at Iwo Jima? No, in fact their strategy was based more upon killing soldiers rather than ejecting the forces from the island...they knew they would be defeated. And if all the diferent suicide weapons didn't give a good hint as to Japan wanting to fight on and on unless forced to the table by something dramatic, i dunno what would.
If we fought the Pacific war like yopu would have wanted...we would have been sitting there after The Battle of Leyte Gulf and say well hey they are militarily and economically beaten...lets wait until they come to their senses...and then just sat there. That is just not realistic.

Oh and i am curious as to why you have the flag upside down?

 

Ron:
The Japanese were "at the table" in July!!!
The bombs did not bring them to the table.
Where are you getting this???
The stated that they would surrender if they were allowed to keep the Emperor.
We said, "NO," the war must go on, because only an "unconditional" surrender will do."
.
At this point in history, Truman should have said:
"We aggree with your condition, because, frankly, we don't care if you have your f****ing Emperor!"
After the bombs were dropped, THEN WE SAID:
"NOW we aggree with your condition, because, frankly, we don't care if you have your f****ing Emperor!"

Nothing changed.

.

Huh?
The Japanese military wanted assurances that the Emperor would not be put on military trial.
That's what was on the table.
All we had to do was agree to it.
Why didn't we agree to it?
This is your reason:

What could you possibly be talking about?
"US policy?" What US policy?
Was it the We Don't Like Emperors Policy of 1932?
And then Truman dictated...
Thius is some kind of joke... right?

 

I'd wonder about what comments would have been made if Stalin would have dropped the bomb on Berlin and Vienna in spring 1945.

Guess the entire world would have cried foul.

Cheers,

 

Nice post, Ron. I don't know much at all about the pacific theater, but has the time lapse between the two bombs been mentioned? If the Japanese were reay to surrender, if they were already at the table, then why did they do nothing after the first bomb was dropped? As far as I know, we dropped the first bomb, and the Japanese did nothing. No surrender offers, nothing like that.
And of course, the US and the other allies made the same demands of all the enemies in WW2- unconditional surrender. Not unconditional surrender with a condition... Why should we have changed that for Japan?
If Japan had beaten the US, somehow I doubt they would have let put conditions on our surrender.

Unconditional surrender, the same one we required for all of the axis in WW2...

OK, so the Japanese surrendered right after the second bombing because?

Of course this is futile, but would there actually be any evidence for this? A source maybe?
Oh, why do I bother...

No, that's not over-simplified at all. Not one bit.


More help from your local intellectual toxic waste dump!

 

Now that's a good one!
Hmmmm... Russia certainly had lost more than the US, by a long shot. So wouldn't this have given the russians even more justification than the US for using the bomb? Like the Japanese, Hitler and the nazis showed no signs of giving up (and in hindsight, they did not!).
The major practical difficulty would have been "friendly fire", since the allies were fighting their way through germany at the time. And of course, Japan is an island, while Germany is right in the middle of Europe...
I wonder what the reaction of the rest fo the world would have been...
I can easily imagine what the UK's reaction would have been!

 

No, umm i never heard of that policy...maybe you should recheck your sources!
US policy in the Pacific was unconditional which dictated the emporer be removed because he was thought to be partly to blame for the war. You made the comment "US policy...what US policy..." but you answer your own question when you mention the Japanese not accepting our terms...our policy was that our terms were non- negotiable. It was policy not to compromise...that is what unconditional means! The US droppes the first bomb and waites for surrender. Then the second bomb is dropped and Japan is still not acceptant of unconditional surrender so the US takes the peaceful initiative and flexes for the Japanese...If anyone is to blame here it's the Japanese leadership starting this war and also not getting out and spairing the population a year or 2 earlier when victory was hopeless. If i had a choice of imprisonment or continued butchering of my family i would pick imprisonment. Of course Japanese leadership chose continued butchering.

ummm...no this is not a joke obviosly you don't know what dictated means. I usually want to think your comments are jokes too but i leave that to myself. Truman maybe didn't create the terms of unconditional surrender but by becoming President and commander-in-chief unconditional surrender was his policy to uphold as well. His and US policy are one in the same. It isn't normal that the victor has to conform to the vanquished and thus the US stayed insistent of it's policy of unconditional surrender. When it became apparent that the emporer prerequisite was not worth continued fighting the US flexed for Japan. which deserves even more credit.
oh and for your benefit
dic·tate Pronunciation Key (dktt, dk-tt)
v. dic·tat·ed, dic·tat·ing, dic·tates
v. tr.
To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.

To prescribe with authority; impose: dictated the rules of the game.
To control or command: “Foreign leaders were... dictated by their own circumstances, bound by the universal imperatives of politics” (Doris Kearns Goodwin).

v. intr.
To say or read aloud material to be recorded or written by another: dictated for an hour before leaving for the day.
To issue orders or commands.

n. (dktt)
A directive; a command.
A guiding principle: followed the dictates of my conscience.

 

Read Stephen Ambrose's Rise to Globalism
or read anything.
You guys are just winging it here.
It's always entertaining to be treated to a classic Crazy Quote, though:

.
Or, "I don't know anything at all about what I'm going to be writing on, but I'm not going to let that stop me."
.
The bottom line to this discussion is that Americans have no idea at all about the civilian suffering which accompanies strategic bombing.
We talk casually about wiping out 10,000, 50,000, or 100,000 people in bombing raids, yet, our insulated frame of reference prevents us from understanding what that type of destruction actually means. Two office buildings fall down in NYC and people are wailing in the streets. Doctors are flooded with post-traumatic stress cases, suicides have gone up, we worry about the psychological damage done to our children. But we can talk about fire-bombing Germans and Japanese civilians without a twinge, as this is the land of Truth and Righteousness. After their war experiences, I can only imagine what the Europeans must think of us.

 

If our "policy" was Unconditional Surrender, then why did we finally allow the Japanese the "condition" of retaining their Emperor?
.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
.

.
Oh, puh-leese. Who are you? Julius Caesar?
.
This discussion has devolved into utter foolishness fueled by your pure conjectures of American history. Your last quote, "The bombs brought the Japanese to the table," clearly shows that, beyond reruns on the History Channel, you've never done the slightest bit of research into this subject.
You want a source? Go read Ambrose: that's my source. Then come back to discuss this.

[ 18 October 2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Knight Templar ]

 

As usual when Knight starts ranting...


And now he's accusing other of conjecture?

 

right i havn't done research on the pacific theater
This discussion has definitely reached it's limit.
Oh and i don't THINK i am Julius Caesar but you never know.

[ 18 October 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]