This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.
Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...
There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.
This will be my last post on the matter. I disagree on your assertion that the Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January 1945. I disagree with your assertions that the prospect of the civilian population starving would have encouraged a drive for peace. I disagree with your calculation of total lives lost with or without the bomb.
Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.
Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...
There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.
This issue of "reasonable terms" keeps coming up here. To the US they weren't reasonable.
FDR laid out the doctrine of unconditional surrender at Casablanca in January 1943. Churchill and Stalin agreed, after some protest by Churchill. That was the position of the Allies from that date until August 1945. The Japanese were well aware of this.
The terms of January 1945 were not unconditional. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" they were. They were not unconditional. But note carefully that in January 1945 the US had not experienced either Iwo Jima or Okinawa. In January 1945 Germany was still fighting like crazy. In that month no one knew if the Bomb would be ready or would work. And FDR was still alive and US was his policy.
By August each of these factors had changed.
A blockade might have worked, over time. Truman didn't have that time, either politically with the US population after Okinawa (vast losses), economically with the prospect of economic upheaval and inflation over pent-up civilian demand, or geopolitically with Stalin's early moves in eastern Europe. He had the Bomb and it worked. There is ample evidence from Potsdam that he never really considered NOT using it. It gave him leverage over Stalin and the Japanese had known the terms available to them for over 2.5 years. He could not justify spending one more American life rather than try the Bomb. Again, there is ample evidence from the Potsdam conference that the question was nonsensical to him. He had the weapon and no Americans would die if it were used. You have to remember this was before the Cold War, escalation, MAD, and all the things we take for granted. To HST it was just a really big bomb. You can't engage in presentism over the issue.
After the twin bombings Japan offered essentially the terms of January 1945, but conditions had changed for the US. The Soviets were moving in eastern Asia, Britain was out of the war, FDR was dead, and the US public was far more war-weary than they had been eight months previously. The Emperor was an acceptable trade-off in August. That piece was wholly unacceptable in January. It's a fair question if FDR would have allowed that small back-slide. We'll never know.
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. [/i]Civilians[/i].
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.
Richard Franks (author of Guadalcanal) studied this question in his more recent book Downfall. Among the points he raises:
- The use of the atom-bomb was inevitable, once it was proven at the Trinity test. I tend to agree w/ Frank's intimation that, had Germany still been a combatant in August '45, the 1st atom-bomb would have been used against Berlin. The Manhattan Project was conceived & pursued as a weapon, only its use could have justified its cost (roughly half that of the creation / production / operation of the B-29 bomber force).
- The January terms unofficially mooted by the Japanese were unacceptable to the US (no Allied occupation, retention of pre-Dec '41 IJ territory, war-crimes prosecuted under IJ aegis, &c.). The Japanese rejection of the Potsdam declaration strengthened US political resolve to acheive a military solution. Frank notes that Hiroshima was the HQ of IJ forces on Kyushu. IJHQ was committed to spending all available resources (including non-uniformed civilian militia) to resist the invasion, as a last-gasp effort to prove that the Japanese Home Islands were unconquerable.
- In late July '45, Admirals King & Nimitz were considering backing off from their support of the Olympic invasion, b/c Ultra intelligence had revealed the massive build-up of IJ Army & air forces in Kyushu, well above the opposition expected when planning for the operation began. Olympic would have been an epic blood-bath. IMO the IJ could have prevailed at at least one of the 3 invasion beaches, their kamikazes could have scored heavily against loaded US transport shipping, & the post-invasion combat would have been awful. US war-weapons included napalm & white phosphoros, & large stocks of gas (mustard gas?) were available.
- Removal of the USN's imprimatur would have forced cancellation of the invasion, the US would likely have relied solely on continued blockade and bombardment. Japan's remaining coastal shipping & rudimentary rail network would have been quickly destroyed, resulting in massive starvation of the Japanese population.
- The Soviets would have entered the war regardless, conquering Manchuria & Sakhalin, but unrestrained from invading Hokkaido as well. At this time, US distrust of Soviet post-war intentions was growing, but had not yet reached Cold-War status. Even so, US politicos had no interest in sharing post-war occupation of Japan w/ anyone else, whatever their nationality.
- In addition to the war casualties suffered by Allied & Japanese military forces, and to Japanese civilians, civilian deaths in Asia were accruing at a rate of ~250,000 per month due to famine, disease & general nastiness. Thoughts on the 'nuclear equation' that ended WWII must include consideration of the effects of the quick, decisive end to WWII on the civilians of greater Asia as well as Japan.
Speaking for myself, I recall the last of the 4-part aphorism that Churchill wrote to the frontispiece of his history of WWII. I believe he wrote, "In victory, magnanimity." When MacArthur was installed as SCAP, pro-consul of occupied Japan, he demanded (& rec'd) shipments of foodstuffs, to relieve famine in Occupied Japan. Mebbe Mac's finest hour was his service to the Japanese population, after their surrender.
Lots of ink & pixels have been expended on the use of the atom-bomb. It's true that many civilians died, but it's also true that it gave the 'short sharp shock' that ended WWII. For a world weary of war, the price was low enough.
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. [/i]Civilians[/i].
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.
The Japanese government had officially declared and announced that all persons of the nation were drafted into the armed services in defense of the homeland and the emperor.
No civilians were killed at either target city. Only combatants were killed.
I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??
I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp
The atomic bombs' modelling in the game has been a point of contention.
There is a 'political' cost to using >2 atomic bombs in the game, per the manual. Please read that aspect under victory conditions. It's not PP per se-it's a shift in the victory conditions. Does this model the 'political cost' for which you seek?
From limited numbers of games getting to late 1945, there has been limited information on game usage of this weapon. I think consensus is that the bombs are decidedly 'underpowered' regarding their effect on military units in the hex, LI/HI destroyed (and damaged), factories and so forth.
As an exclusively Japanese player, I'd be gobsmacked (good word for the lexicon, thanks my English friends) if my Allied opponent didn't use them (at least the two 'freebies').
Back to this specific AE game mechanic point.
There are several threads which discuss the game impact of using the Atomic bomb. The following thread is one of the better ones.
Essentially it is eye candy. To a large extent the relative anaemic effect is due to the effect being limited to 32k. One of the devs (Terminus) in another a-bomb thread confirmed that the 32k is a coding maximum upper limit. It is a carry over from classical WITP.
ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. [/i]Civilians[/i].
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.
Dammit, BattleMoose, I agree w/ your sentiment, but is there any part of war that spares non-combatants?
Read some history, my god, everything from the biblical plagues on Egypt, the Mongol expansion to the west, the European wars of several centuries duration, the American westward expansion, the aerial bombardments of Chunking, Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima - it's all about killing civilians. That's what war does best, organized power kills civilians to acheive greater political power, and has done so throughout recorded history.
Famous victories have been won over the bodies of dead civilians, who might have been engaged in labor strikes, or local political insurrection, or land-disputes, or religious differences, or just b/c they got caught in the cross-fire between colonial governerships. From the ashes, we raise our children to believe in higher ideals, yet they find themselves trapped in endless war.
Dropping the bombs was relatively cheap. Invasion or starvation of the HI most certainly would have cost more lives.
There is also another way to look at it:
- What if the bombs were not dropped? Nobody would have witnessed the terrible destruction, illness and death it could cause. That might have caused somebody somewhere to drop the bomb years after the war (a much more powerful version...).. Don't you think that is scary?
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
ORIGINAL: VegasOZ
The Japanese government had officially declared and announced that all persons of the nation were drafted into the armed services in defense of the homeland and the emperor.
No civilians were killed at either target city. Only combatants were killed.
Nonsense, they were civilians. By just about every definition of the word that exists. And certainly by Geneva convention standards.
ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. [/i]Civilians[/i].
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.
Dammit, BattleMoose, I agree w/ your sentiment, but is there any part of war that spares non-combatants?
Read some history, my god, everything from the biblical plagues on Egypt, the Mongol expansion to the west, the European wars of several centuries duration, the American westward expansion, the aerial bombardments of Chunking, Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima - it's all about killing civilians. That's what war does best, organized power kills civilians to acheive greater political power, and has done so throughout recorded history.
Famous victories have been won over the bodies of dead civilians, who might have been engaged in labor strikes, or local political insurrection, or land-disputes, or religious differences, or just b/c they got caught in the cross-fire between colonial governerships. From the ashes, we raise our children to believe in higher ideals, yet they find themselves trapped in endless war.
The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.
Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.
But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.
The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.
Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.
But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.
So, what was the alternative?
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
Ok all very hypothetical stuff. Just to chuck another slant in and then jump back into my trench.....
If one wants to simply try and compare the deaths from those two bombs versus the supposed deaths had the invasion been necessary, and extrapolate further, it stopped dead in in its tracks any thought Stalin might have had of further expansion until he had his own to play with.... so how many deaths would have occurred had the Soviets decided with their massive war machine they could take a little bit more of Europe once the German forces were out of the game?
Hypothetical argument.
Roger
An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released
The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.
Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.
But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.
So, what was the alternative?
warspite1
The alternatives depend on your point of view -as discussed in the previous pages e.g:
- some believe there was no reason to drop the bomb - the Japanese were about to surrender
- others believe in no bombs - but no invasion either. Instead the Japanese would be starved into submission
- others believe that invasion was the only way to get the Japanese to surrender; and rather than go down this route, the use of the bombs was preferable.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.
Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.
But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.
So, what was the alternative?
You are limited only by your imagination. Doesn't change my position that purposefully killing civilians is wrong.
Country A develops a massive weapon theoretically in such secrecy that it stays a secret.
Country A thinks perhaps its a useful thing to have to threaten others and keep the peace....
Country A realises that as long as it stays theoretical other countries, especially Country B will not take it seriously
Country A realises it needs to demonstrate its power..... and there is a handy island nowhere near their own troops.... and it needs to show the actual effects rather than use it on some atoll away from the world.
Now we get into very murky waters indeed.
Roger
One of the baby boomers who was raised in a very black and white world with no shades of grey, who since has discovered there's no black or white and an awful lot of grey.
An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released
ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. [/i]Civilians[/i].
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.
Dammit, BattleMoose, I agree w/ your sentiment, but is there any part of war that spares non-combatants?
Read some history, my god, everything from the biblical plagues on Egypt, the Mongol expansion to the west, the European wars of several centuries duration, the American westward expansion, the aerial bombardments of Chunking, Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima - it's all about killing civilians. That's what war does best, organized power kills civilians to acheive greater political power, and has done so throughout recorded history.
Famous victories have been won over the bodies of dead civilians, who might have been engaged in labor strikes, or local political insurrection, or land-disputes, or religious differences, or just b/c they got caught in the cross-fire between colonial governerships. From the ashes, we raise our children to believe in higher ideals, yet they find themselves trapped in endless war.
The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.
Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.
But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.
warspite1
Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited.
No, they still maintained enough power to continue to kill hundreds of thousands of Chinese, prisoners of war, Allied servicemen (Soviets too).
To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.
Hold hostage? Not sure I understand that. Japan was, by any measure, a beaten nation - yes they still had the power to inflict hurt as per above, but they were beaten.
Their living God Emperor simply had to give the word to end the madness and save his people (even if he cared about nothing else) from this madness. If you choose to look at it in those terms, who was holding those civilians hostage? The Emperor or the Allies?
It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians.
Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Would agree that the deliberate killing of civilians is wrong, but would ask when the first occurrence of such an act took place? I suspect records don't go back that far.
Bomber Command deliberately targeted civilian areas in Germany, Dresden came pretty close to the same level of devastation as the Nagaskai bomb.
Civilians on the NE coast of England were shelled by the German High Seas Fleet in WW1.
The Red Army when it took control of Berlin caused massive civilian deaths - post victory this was.
Anyone in any besieged city throughout history that did not surrender to the besiegers would potentially be slaughtered on its conquest.
The BOMB is simply the scale and psychological impact, not the actual death toll.
Roger
An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released
You are limited only by your imagination. Doesn't change my position that purposefully killing civilians is wrong.
I think most people here agree with that position. It is also very black and white and easy to sympathize with.. I don't think there were any good options in august 1945.. There was just a lot of bad ones that would work....
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.
Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).
Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.
I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.
