Were the atomic bombs necessary

[LeeChard]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change [;)]

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

While discussing the pros and cons of the cost of invasion to the US or Japan,
we seem to be overlooking the millions of people under Japanese occupation.
What happens to them while we starve out Japan?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you



The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

While discussing the pros and cons of the cost of invasion to the US or Japan,
we seem to be overlooking the millions of people under Japanese occupation.
What happens to them while we starve out Japan?

warspite1

Please see Post 77. I mentioned specifically the Chinese - but of course this applies to all under Japanese occupation. As I said to Pontiouspilot - slowly starving the Japanese population to death (and all that means for others (prisoners of war, those under occupation)) does not bear thinking about - and was politically impossible.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

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.

warspite1

I'm sure they could, but that is not a very helpful analogy.

But that is your view and, whilst strongly disagreeing, I respect your right to hold it.

[Numdydar]

For those that wondered what Japan would be doing in other areas while blockade/invasion was occurring (and especially those worrying about killing civilians) we have a great example in the below. Around late '44 early '45 the Andaman Islands (Port Blair) were cut off from receiving any food/supplies, i.e. blockaded. While a small scale example, it seems likely that this same 'tale' would have been carried out everywhere Japan still had troops while the war still raged. So saying killing civilians is horrible and unacceptable by the bomb, does not change the fact that far more civilians would have been killed by Japanese troops as the war continued. Not to mention the abuse/torture that would have continued to be inflicted. So I am easily on the side that using the bomb to end the war, saved many more civilian live from a lot of things that were worse than death. As using the bomb stopped all of this a lot quicker.

In addition to these performances, local women were recruited by Bakshi as “comfort women” for the Japanese garrison, although due to unhappy later took women from Korea and Malaya. The Japanese built a new airport near Port Blair, and for that used forced labor. In October 1942 he conducted mass arrests of ‘spies’, imprisoning some 300 people in the Cellular Jail, where many were tortured. Of these, seven were executed, including Narayan Rao, who was Superintendent of Police under occupation, Itter Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Subedar Singh Up Military Police and Dr. Surinder Nag. Realizing that the Japanese began to focus on influential members of the population, members of the League of India Indenpendencia became nervous, and reduced their participation in nationalist activities. In 1943, a second wave of terror carried out by the new commander of the garrison, Colonel Renusakai Jochi, and the Chief of Police, Mitsubashi, both of which were previously stationed in Nanjing. 600 people were arrested and tortured under his charge, including Dr. Diwan Singh, who died as a result of his injuries. At that point in the war the Japanese felt that Bakshi was no longer useful to them and imprisoned.

As food became escaza in 1945, the Japanese resorted to even more desperate methods. Between 250 and 700 people (estimates vary) in the region of south Andaman Aberdeen were deported to an uninhabited island to grow food. According to the stories of a survivor, a convict named Ali Saudagar who had been released by the Japanese, at least six people drowned or were eaten by sharks to be pushed to their boats in the dark, while the rest died of starvation or were killed by Burmese pirates. A rescue mission was sent to the island when the occupation ended and found but twelve survivors and more than two hundred skeletons on the beach.

In total, an estimated 2,000 people died in the islands as a result of the occupation, and at least 501 were tortured. That amount represents 10% of the population of Port Blair before the war. Declines in the Nicobar Islands (which are much less populated) were lower, as the Japanese did not have a garrison there. However, in 1943 created a small period of terror in Car Nicobar where nicobarenses kidnapped for forced labor. The occupation left a legacy of rejection towards the Japanese, and to some extent to the Azad Hind who collaborated with the occupiers, among the generation that suffered the occupation.

Source
http://www.desertwar.net/japanese-occupation-of-the-andaman-islands.html

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

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 "short sharp shock" had already been delivered before Nagasaki was obliterated in the form of the Soviets disregarding the Neutrality Pact . And it was more of "overwhelming " than a short or sharp - after all, the Japanese had been looking to the Russians to serve as middle-men in negotations and for them to suddenly turn against Japan did more to rattle the corridors of power than the destruction of major cities.

@ Numdydar

The question is would the Japanese behave the same way towards their own population? There is quite a difference between a conquered population with unfamiliar language and culture.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

While discussing the pros and cons of the cost of invasion to the US or Japan,
we seem to be overlooking the millions of people under Japanese occupation.
What happens to them while we starve out Japan?

warspite1

Please see Post 77. I mentioned specifically the Chinese - but of course this applies to all under Japanese occupation. As I said to Pontiouspilot - slowly starving the Japanese population to death (and all that means for others (prisoners of war, those under occupation)) does not bear thinking about - and was politically impossible.

"We'll burn people alive with naplam indescriminately and drop this bomb that wipes out entire cities, but we can't starve them! That's politically impossible."

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

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.

That, really, is the root cause of this whole debate. The notion of unconditional surrender meant that the Japanese had to be ground down to the point that they became willing to accept unconditional surrender. At the time, a great deal of grinding was needed to overcome the jingoism within sections of the Japanese military.

The debate over the merits of the Allies insisting upon unconditional surrender is for another thread I think.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

"We'll burn people alive with naplam indescriminately and drop this bomb that wipes out entire cities, but we can't starve them! That's politically impossible."

Warspite1

Hee Hee you like the little word games.

Yes, the Short, Sharp Shock referred to previously was, for the reasons discussed, the best of a bunch of bad options.

Slowly starving the Japanese population over an extended period of time (with all that would mean for POW and those under occupation) would have been politically, morally and practically impossible.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

That, really, is the root cause of this whole debate. The notion of unconditional surrender meant that the Japanese had to be ground down to the point that they became willing to accept unconditional surrender. At the time, a great deal of grinding was needed to overcome the jingoism within sections of the Japanese military.

The debate over the merits of the Allies insisting upon unconditional surrender is for another thread I think.

As part of my undergraduate History degree I read a short essay/book about the subject of unconditional surrender. I still have my copy. The volume is in print:

http://www.amazon.com/Diplomacy-Victory ... or+victory

Professor O'Connor was in favor of the policy, arguing among other things that it forced Churchill to sidestep colonial concerns and focus on the core war objectives. He addresses many of the points brought up in this thread.

In no war before or since has the USA demanded unconditional surrender. WWII was different for us in ways I don't think Europeans understand. The war in the PTO was a war of fury, begun by deceit and a sneak attack that struck at deeply-held American notions of how nations should behave. There was also a very significant racial factor not present in the ETO. These are two reasons for my previous comments concerning HST's thoughts about use of the Bomb at Potsdam, documented in many places but very well in the Pulitzer-winning biography by David McCullough. It simply did not occur to him not to use it given the 2.5 year extant policy of unconditional surrender, that Japan had started the war, and that he had a potential means to bring about surrender without expending any more American lives. The US public simply did not equate Japanese civilian lives with US servicemen's. Japanese lives were worth less. Period.

It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

[blueatoll]

While I don't have a Ph.D. on the subject, I do have 2 graduate classes about this subject under my belt (History and combined Government/Physics) from a reputable university.

Several points here:
1. Berlin would have been the target of the 1st bomb if Germany was still in action in late July 1945. 100% guarantee that.

2. The combined Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet invasions were predicted to have Allied dead at over 250,000 with well over 2,000,000 Allied overall (Coronet estimates alone were 1.2M) casualties. Japanese killed, military and civilian (remember the mass suicides at Saipan) were predicted well around 8-10 MILLION. Allied military command tacitly acknowledged that Soviet help (re. manpower) would be needed if the invasion dragged on into late 1946 if not earlier. 500,000 purple hearts were manufactured in preparation for Operation Olympic alone.

3. There was a significant movement, particularly among the scientists who built the bomb, to give Japan an announced 'test' demonstration of the power of the bomb's effectiveness by dropping it on a large forest (can't think of the name) near Tokyo. This idea was considered and rejected because the military didn't want to announce the forest would be destroyed by a super weapon only to have the bomb not detonate.

4. Curtis LeMay (surprise) was a huge proponent of the starvation plan where Japan would be blockaded by subs and the air force would firebomb cities into ruin. Office of Strategic Survey post-war analysis showed that this plan, while effective in limiting food supplies (and some materials) would not have had a significant impact on Japan's ability to defend the home islands due to Japanese soldiers/civilians demonstrated willingness to launch themselves in suicide attacks rather than surrender.

5. Allied commanders and politicos were highly motivated to limit Soviet actions in the Pacific after seeing Europe carved up and looking at the long-term political landscape, e.g. the coming Cold War. Ending the war as soon as possible was the best course of action.

6. Legitimate arguments from the Joint Chiefs - 'If we spent all that money to build it, we need to use it.'

7. And this one is the important one - See #2. MILLIONS OF CASUALTIES PREDICTED...MILLIONS...Japanese and Allied...

So justified, well it all depends on your favorite flavor of slaughter. It did end the war and MILLIONS didn't die so in the end it was the right decision.

[AW1Steve]

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't consider this a relevant question. In line with the current debate in the US over the Senate's post-9/11 torture report. It doesn't matter what our enemies would do. We're better than them.

[warspite1]

I find the idea that "Europeans" cannot understand how the US felt about the Pacific War really quite ridiculous. And as for "There was also a very significant racial factor not present in the ETO". I'm totally at a loss....

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

"We'll burn people alive with naplam indescriminately and drop this bomb that wipes out entire cities, but we can't starve them! That's politically impossible."

Warspite1

Hee Hee you like the little word games.

Yes, the Short, Sharp Shock referred to previously was, for the reasons discussed, the best of a bunch of bad options.

Slowly starving the Japanese population over an extended period of time (with all that would mean for POW and those under occupation) would have been politically, morally and practically impossible.

You seem to miss the point. Firebombing and the atomic bombs were both used without consideration for groups such as POWs or occupied peoples. Why do you think Allied attitude would suddenly change with the decision to use blockade?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

That, really, is the root cause of this whole debate. The notion of unconditional surrender meant that the Japanese had to be ground down to the point that they became willing to accept unconditional surrender. At the time, a great deal of grinding was needed to overcome the jingoism within sections of the Japanese military.

The debate over the merits of the Allies insisting upon unconditional surrender is for another thread I think.

It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

First on the list for the new years reading.

While I do think that unconditional surrender was the correct course of action in terms of ensuring peace in the long run as well as dispelling any doubt over who won or lost the war (The old "stab in the back" myth, anyone?) it must be acknowledge that demanding unconditional surrender and only unconditional surrender was a big pill to swallow for most of the Japanese leadership.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

Warspite1

Not sure this is relevant or, more importantly, helpful to those arguing that the decision was correct.If we say the Germans would have not hesitated to use such an awful weapon as justification for its use, are we, by definition, inadvertently comparing the US to the Nazis?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

"We'll burn people alive with naplam indescriminately and drop this bomb that wipes out entire cities, but we can't starve them! That's politically impossible."

Warspite1

Hee Hee you like the little word games.

Yes, the Short, Sharp Shock referred to previously was, for the reasons discussed, the best of a bunch of bad options.

Slowly starving the Japanese population over an extended period of time (with all that would mean for POW and those under occupation) would have been politically, morally and practically impossible.

You seem to miss the point. Firebombing and the atomic bombs were both used without consideration for groups such as POWs or occupied peoples. Why do you think Allied attitude would suddenly change with the decision to use blockade?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

That, really, is the root cause of this whole debate. The notion of unconditional surrender meant that the Japanese had to be ground down to the point that they became willing to accept unconditional surrender. At the time, a great deal of grinding was needed to overcome the jingoism within sections of the Japanese military.

The debate over the merits of the Allies insisting upon unconditional surrender is for another thread I think.

It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

First on the list for the new years reading.

While I do think that unconditional surrender was the correct course of action in terms of ensuring peace in the long run as well as dispelling any doubt over who won or lost the war (The old "stab in the back" myth, anyone?) it must be acknowledge that demanding unconditional surrender and only unconditional surrender was a big pill to swallow for most of the Japanese leadership.

warspite1

No sir, I am afraid it is you that has misunderstood. The whole point - right or wrong - is what ends the war quickest. Starving the population to death over an extended period is not getting the war finished quickly, and at the cheapest cost in lives.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't consider this a relevant question. In line with the current debate in the US over the Senate's post-9/11 torture report. It doesn't matter what our enemies would do. We're better than them.

At least two respondents don't think we are. The very fact that we are discussing all kinds of bizarre opinions make it quite relevant. 9/11 has nothing to do with the decision in 1945. And in all honesty isn't saying "I wouldn't do it because I'm better than that" like saying "I won't shoot 1st, even if he points a gun at me?" What I mean is that now you are confusing morality with survival. At the time , many people say it as being in the wilderness and being attacked by a pack of beasts. Two had been rendered harmless (Germany and Italy) , one was refusing to die and appearing very dangerous , and who knows how many other "wild beasts" were out there? "Hurry up and finish this one" was on more than a few American minds. People were tired , angry and scared. They just wanted it over. Morality had little to do with it, and I'm sure more than a few Americans felt "they'd do it to us". And there were more than a few doubts that Japan would not still try. Every single warring power had some kind of nuclear program.

I don't think people on either side were thinking of "a good clean fight". They wanted it over. Forever. Period.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

Hee Hee you like the little word games.

Yes, the Short, Sharp Shock referred to previously was, for the reasons discussed, the best of a bunch of bad options.

Slowly starving the Japanese population over an extended period of time (with all that would mean for POW and those under occupation) would have been politically, morally and practically impossible.

You seem to miss the point. Firebombing and the atomic bombs were both used without consideration for groups such as POWs or occupied peoples. Why do you think Allied attitude would suddenly change with the decision to use blockade?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

First on the list for the new years reading.

While I do think that unconditional surrender was the correct course of action in terms of ensuring peace in the long run as well as dispelling any doubt over who won or lost the war (The old "stab in the back" myth, anyone?) it must be acknowledge that demanding unconditional surrender and only unconditional surrender was a big pill to swallow for most of the Japanese leadership.

warspite1

No sir, I am afraid it is you that has misunderstood. The whole point - right or wrong - is what ends the war quickest. Starving the population to death over an extended period is not getting the war finished quickly, and at the cheapest cost in lives.

At this point, the debate comes down to if more or less than 200,000 Japanese would have to die before their government caved in.

My view is that bombs were not needed, nor was blockade. Soviet involvement in the war had forced the Japanese leadership to realize that they were up against the wall and with no better prospect for terms.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't consider this a relevant question. In line with the current debate in the US over the Senate's post-9/11 torture report. It doesn't matter what our enemies would do. We're better than them.

At least two respondents don't think we are. The very fact that we are discussing all kinds of bizarre opinions make it quite relevant. 9/11 has nothing to do with the decision in 1945. And in all honesty isn't saying "I wouldn't do it because I'm better than that" like saying "I won't shoot 1st, even if he points a gun at me?" What I mean is that now you are confusing morality with survival. At the time , many people say it as being in the wilderness and being attacked by a pack of beasts. Two had been rendered harmless (Germany and Italy) , one was refusing to die and appearing very dangerous , and who knows how many other "wild beasts" were out there? "Hurry up and finish this one" was on more than a few American minds. People were tired , angry and scared. They just wanted it over. Morality had little to do with it, and I'm sure more than a few Americans felt "they'd do it to us". And there were more than a few doubts that Japan would not still try. Every single warring power had some kind of nuclear program.

I don't think people on either side were thinking of "a good clean fight". They wanted it over. Forever. Period.

At the time there were many Americans who had no qualms about using poison gas on Japan. That's irrelevant to the question I answered. It doesn't matter if the Nazis or Japan would have used the Bomb in the decision for us to use it. Using your enemy as the baseline is wrong. Wrong then, wrong now. The US and the UK have both been guilty of bad things in their respective histories. Events in India/Africa for the Empire, actions taken on the western frontier for the US. As examples. But neither would ever contemplate the Holocaust, Rape of Nanking, or the kulak famine. Those three events are not and should not be our baselines for acceptable behavior.

[Orm]

So far this debate has been interesting. But all seem to avoid the point made by the Russian in the article in post #1.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Orm

So far this debate has been interesting. But all seem to avoid the point made by the Russian in the article in post #1.

What, the complete non-sequitur of the last sentence?

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Orm

So far this debate has been interesting. But all seem to avoid the point made by the Russian in the article in post #1.

So the "Russians" have clean hands as well?

I recall a section from a fictional work where the character(Jake Grafton) lists the tens of millions of citizens of the USSR whose death was caused by Stalin.

If "Crimes against humanity" has no statute of limitations, we need to chase Sherman for causing civilian deaths at Atlanta, the commandants of Andersonville, the leaders of the Ottoman occupiers of Malta, probably Julius Caesar, Alexander, Darius and certainly Genghis Khan.

War is Hell !!