My intent is not and has not been to try and claim that I am a general of any sort. My intent, as perhaps it is lacking in clarity, has been and always will be that what happened was cruel, inhuman, and unjust.
So we're in a war, you say. That doesn't justify some of the things done in war. It doesn't justify Japanese war crimes. It doesn't justify American ones any more. I am hardly favoring the Japanese over anyone else in saying this. In fact, my opinion is strongly against the fanatical rulers who dragged their nation into a completely unwinnable war against an entirely unbeatable opponent. My point is this: as you said, had we not used atomic bombs against Japan to speed up the surrender, the Russians would have entered the war and gained a large measure of control in post-war Japan. This did not sit well with those in Washington, as I suspect you already know, so they wanted to speed up the schedule. The atomic bomb was a convienent way. However, using the bomb was also necessary from the standpoint that it had been developed at tremendous cost, and to have the war end without it's use would have made it seem a failure as a weapon. So, as had long been planned, the atomic bombs were used. They had to be, or so was the idea. But this is ignoring the strong possibility Japan would have come to negotiations, if the United States had ensured some means of survival for the Emperor before the use of the bombs.
Why they didn't do this is quite clear: America wanted Unconditional Surrender. To negotiate for the survival of the Emperor would have been a Conditional Surrender. After defeating the rest of the Axis without sitting down at the negotiation table, why would the U.S. do it now? It's a perfectly sane question to ask. But what I question is the outcome. Why, if the U.S. was so determined to force the Emperor aside, was he allowed to remain for the rest of his life? Why does Japan still have an Emperor, albeit with much less power, to this day? The ultimate outcome, of leaving the Emperor because removing him completely would have destabalized post-war Japan too much and made the Japanese uncoperative, would have been the same had the United States succeeded in negotiations before using the atomic bombs. I should also mention that, contrary to popular belief, the Emperor by this time was living in a bombed-out palace, no longer in control of the government, and had no ability to surrender himself until the United States armed forces ensured his protection. I, along with many World War II historians, have sufficient reason to believe Japan would have surrendered to admit the possibility. I won't say it would have happened for sure, but I think there was a very good chance. Just as America now wants a "victory with honor" withdrawl from Iraq, and wanted a "peace with honor" withdrawl from Vietnam, Japan wanted similar treatment. The United States didn't give it to them. It seems a shame to me, less for political reasons, than for the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians possibly died unnecessarily. Yet, people such as yourself continue to deny that even a possibility of that existed. Instead, I cannot help but conclude that by simply stating it was the right thing to do without examining the human cost, you might allow for such a thing to happen again in the world. I believe that as rational human beings, we are capable of ending wars in better ways. People talk about self-preservation, along individual or national lines. I think we really should be talking about it as a species. Maybe even as a whole world.
Finally, I just would like to say that unless you've been to some of the places where horrible things have happened in wars, you haven't really come to know them. I've been to Normandy, to several of the devastated towns where thousands of French civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hitler were sadly killed in the fighting to free them. Some were killed by their liberators. It's a very sad place to be, if you know the history. However, if you go there now, people are happy, cheerful, and smiling. You would never know a war had happened there. I've also been to Hiroshima, and am planning to go to Nagasaki when next I am able to travel to Japan. Again, you would never know what happened there from looking around. However, you do notice something in the people right away: they don't want to see it happen again, and they want people to realize that the horror inflicted on their relatives more than half a decade ago is not repeated, not just in Japan, but anywhere. Hiroshima is a self-proclaimed international city of peace. Being in such a place, I can't help but want to join in that mission, and discourage things like that from happening again. One of the ways to do that is to make people realize that, even if it doesn't seem like it at the time, the choice to inflict death is always a choice. If the United States were really and truly serious about reaching peace without any further American losses, they would have simply starved Japan out. There wasn't a need to invade. Japan is an island country with few natural resources. By even the most liberal standards, they would have been out of everything by 1946. Keep a blockade, keep mining the harbors, keep starving the people, and it would have been over. Starving the people would have still been a massive tragedy, but no more Americans would have had to die. Or, how about demonstrating the atomic bomb to the Japanese by blowing up a nearby atol or island that was uninhabitted? That could have just as easily persuaded them. Furthermore, as for why it took two atomic bombs, look no further than the Russians mentioned earlier by yourself. They were about to enter the war. The United States wanted to speed up the surrender so Russia wouldn't have access to Japan. They thus bombed Nagasaki far too soon for any real plans of surrender to have been drawn up. This deliberate attempt is confirmed by papers I have seen myself from the War Department. It was also confirmed by people in the military at the time and during later years. If you would like any sort of proof of my arguments, it can be found in the Hiroshima Peace Park in Japan, should you ever visit there. When I went, I was the only American in the museum. Something tells me that, even though we say we had to do it, few actually want to face up to what the reality of "doing it" truly meant.
What strikes me the most is how this discussion started by comparing Nanking to Hiroshima, and trying to portray one as worse than the other. That was what I originally commented on. I'm still commenting only because it surprises me how many people to this day are "desktop defenders" of events that happened when they were young, or possibly not even born yet. I won't try to change anyone's mind, nor portray any one side as worse than any other side. I only would try to encourage people to not think of such things as unavoidable. There are always many options in life for courses of action. You can choose which you want to take. I also would like to see a little more respect for human life, especially for those that actually died, and not those that would have died had some insane plan of invasion, which was completely and totally unnecessary, ever been enacted. Do yourself a favor: go to Hiroshima or some other such place, come back, and then tell the world you supported what went on there. If you can in good conscience do that, then... I don't know what to say for the state of humanity anymore. If, on the other hand, looking at that side of things prompts you to at least avoid following what has been told to the American public for more than the last fifty years, or if not that, to at least admit the possibility that it wasn't necessary, then I would say that people have a chance to learn. I would never want to have to think that people are incapable of changing from their established behaviors. If that were the case, I should think that with such weapons as the atomic bomb, humans will sadly not last much longer in this world.
Just think about it. Ponder over it. Consider those who died. Consider being one of them. And consider if you could forgive members of the same nation who killed your relatives, as citizens of Hiroshima forgave me. Think about a positive change from barbarism. If you at least believe that it's possible, then maybe, just maybe, it will be.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Paprika - A New Anime by Satoshi Kon and Studio Madhouse.
Paprika. This is your brain on anime.
reply
share
jason626
17 years ago
"My point is this: as you said, had we not used atomic bombs against Japan to speed up the surrender, the Russians would have entered the war and gained a large measure of control in post-war Japan."
Russia had already entered the war against Japan. They were fighting when we dropped the bomb. Truman made sure Stalin did not get any part of Japan. You are not the only person on these boards that studt history, nor visit places affected by war. Dropping an atomic bomb is nothing to take lightly, and should be considered a harsh end to a bitter war. The bitter reality is the outcome of dropping the bomb has prevented us from doing it again. Although Japan was warned about the bomb before we dropped it. Still Japan would not surrender, and was traeted the same way as those Japanese defenders the Marines were fighting.
As a historian, you already know about the U.S. Army's lack of morale in shipping over to the Pacific Theater. Or about the fincial cost the war was taking on the U.S. economy. What about the lives of those AMERICAN soldiers saved by not invading. I am sorry by during a war I care very little for the enemy, such is the business of war.
"Or, how about demonstrating the atomic bomb to the Japanese by blowing up a nearby atol or island that was uninhabitted?"
Truman demonstrated the bomb, and the Japanese knew about it. The American Government tried to convince Japan to surrender or we would drop such a weapon. After Hiroshima, Japan got a first hand look at the weapon STILL THEY FOUGHT ON. Japan was intent on fighting till the last man, women, and child. Such is their way of life, and Americans should not have to die over it.
reply
share
LainEverliving
17 years ago
It is not Japan's way of life to fight to the death. This is a bit of a myth. Ask most Japanese people if that's the mentality they live by, and they will say it isn't. Still, there is no question that the military was instructed to fight on until the end. But how could they keep fighting without food, amunition, oil, weapons, or even uniforms? This seems to not be thought of at all.
Obviously, to a war planner, the lives of the soldiers on your side mean more than the lives on the enemy side. But despite what I've said repeatedly, the option of not invading, but instead waiting the Japanese out through depravation of resources, is rarely considered by those who defend the atomic bombing. Also, it was never stated to the Japanese government directly that the atomic bomb would be used against such and such a target as a civilian population or city. Do not forget that it was hard in largely sealed-off Japan to get word of the atomic testing in the United States, and that it is doubtful that very many people in Japan got to see footage of the blast. Many Americans were unaware of the testing themselves. So, this argument that the weapon had been demonstated in full view of the world is somewhat inaccurate.
As far as being forced to use another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, as I stated before, four days is not enough time for even a conditional, let alone an unconditional surrender, to be agreed upon by a nation. That was the amount of time given to Japan. Should the United States ever be attacked with an atomic weapon and demanded to surrender, I should hope that the leaders of the nation would have a little more time to come to a full agreement and understanding on what should be done, if for no other reason then the protection of U.S. citizens. I don't think it's really so unbelievable that the United States would go on fighting for less than a week after something like that. As stated by me before, try putting yourself in the shoes of the Japanese. Or at least, try to relate what they were going through to what American civilians might have to go through if we ever have the misfortune of being invaded. As you said, the civilians were treated the same way as the Japanese defenders who were fought by the Marines. Well, civilians aren't the same as defenders, no matter whether they were involved in a voluntary homeland defense force (which armed them with bamboo poles and little else) or not. It's not like the entire population of Hiroshima or Nagasaki would have fought to the death. Even Japanese soldiers surrendered.
Finally, you mentioned that I am not the only person on these boards to have visited places affected by war. My only question remains: have you been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki? If you haven't at least try to understand the opinion of someone who has.
Paprika - A New Anime by Satoshi Kon and Studio Madhouse.
Paprika. This is your brain on anime.
reply
share
jason626
17 years ago
What we have here is a debate, and a very good one at that. I would just like to keep it civilized, and not resort to name calling or other insults. Although I disagree with you has nothing to do with you as a person.
"It is not Japan's way of life to fight to the death. This is a bit of a myth"
I would say in modern Japan it is a concept that has faded. Although the concept was alive and well during the war in certain circles.
"But how could they keep fighting without food, amunition, oil, weapons, or even uniforms?"
To fight a gorilla war is not a hard thing. Fighting without the basic components of war is very possible. Ethiopia gave the Italians a hard time with no real weapons either. The Japanese were know for their bayonet charge.
"Also, it was never stated to the Japanese government directly that the atomic bomb would be used against such and such a target as a civilian population or city."
If Japan thought that we would not have used the bomb on a civilian target then they deserved to lose the war. Their military targets were based in cities, and were already bombing the civilian population. The concept of total war comes into play. Japan was also researching the same technology, and would not have thought twice on dropping it on an American city. This is not a racist, its war; example Dresden.
"Well, civilians aren't the same as defenders, no matter whether they were involved in a voluntary homeland defense force (which armed them with bamboo poles and little else) or not. It's not like the entire population of Hiroshima or Nagasaki would have fought to the death. Even Japanese soldiers surrendered."
Civilians are the last line of defense. Please take into account Vietnam. The Civilians their made great defenders with little experience or training. Although some of the Japanese Army would have surrendered it was the Generals who needed the bomb dropped for them. Although I do believe that if the Emperor was in control the bomb would never have been used. He would have surrendered weeks before.
Waiting Japan out would have worked though. I am not going to disagree with you about it working. The time table, and the invasion force was not capable of waiting though. Russia would have invaded within weeks of us not dropping the bomb. The U.S. Army was not wanting the invade, and the capability of ending the war with a bomb was a better idea for them.
The only upsetting thing about this story is Japans lack of responsibilty for the war.
"The end justifies the means"
reply
share
Trinian89
14 years ago
@LainEverliving
I agree with about 90% of the things you've said, I just wanted to add a few things.I'm going to do them in points, because I am with you on your post and intention.
As the story goes, the reasons why the idea of warning Japan was pushed out in the US was mainly a) If they warned them, the Japanese would evacuate their big remaining cities. and b) someone on the board I forgot his name, suggested that they'd invite Japanese political names in charge at the time and demonstrate the bomb in a remote lying island. This plan did not go on, as there were two uranium Gun-barrel type bombs and a single plutonium bomb. They tested one of the Uranium bombs at the Trinity Test in New Mexico, Los Alamos I believe. and were unclear at that point of the plutonium bomb would work or not. so using the bomb for demonstration, they were afraid they'd have no bomb left to use.
They didn't use the bomb on the Germany (as it was intended.. at least my schoolbook says so,) because Truman gets the notification that the trinity test ''so far exceeds expectations'' during the Potsdam Conference in July. Germany surrendered in may, thus they were already defeated and could not be a target.
The people of Japan may not have been so deeply involved in the Bushido code (the samurai code the soldiers fought by,) but the militarist that were also a part in the political system, pushed everyone to be a part of it. For instance, there were police in Japan during the war to check if you were patriotic enough (you can also see this in the movie ''Letters from Iwo Jima''.) I agree that most people would have eventually have surrendered. However Japan itself, as a government ruled by those people wouldn't have.
During the Potsdam Conference, the original draft of unconditional surrender was changed, to unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, however in the declaration it does not read that the emperor is allowed to stay, even though many today say that, that would have been the case.
4 days it definitely not enough time, but as you said Truman was pressing for time, racing against Stalin. Remember the doctrine he set up later, the man practically hated communism. The story goes, that Truman was unable to sleep after the war due to his conciouns after using the atomb bomb, however I am a little sceptical about it. Why? because he didn't feel that bad when he dropped them. When you have to do something bad, and you have to do it, the least you can do is not look like it's your birthday.
I think had Stalin pushed through, the Red Army would have plundered, and Raped and done horrible things, as they did in Berlin.
Everything else I agree with you, and so there is no need to rewrite them. Sadly I'm still a student and have no direct means to visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but one day I'm definitely going to go there.
What I wrote above, is what I was thought by my History teacher and history books, if it is flawed it's because my information was.
Have a good day,
Joker:They don't make straitjackets like they used to. I should know.
reply
share