Matrix Games Forums

Very well said Alred.
I have read this entire post and observed the arguing points.
Those that say the Soviet Union's entry into the war is what caused Japanese surrender...not THE BOMB, fail to understand why the Japanese tossed in the towel after Soviet intervention.
It was not because they feared the Soviets would now militarily end the war. It meant that what the Japanese Government had been seeking since the beginning of 1945 - a surrender that was NOT unconditional - was now off the table.
That was the significance of Soviet intervention.

And I do not believe the US Government owes Japan any apology for using Atomic weapons either. All the major powers were trying to develop it, and all were ready to use it if they had it.

Furthermore, Japan had been outstandingly cruel to the helpless and defenseless in the prosecution of her war over-seas, so for what ever the 'humanity' side of the argument is worth, Japan of 1945 deserved no particular sympathy to spare civilian losses.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This thread is dealing with two quite separate subjects.

Chickenboy is putting the position that the serious historians writing for their peers generally put.  Good academic historians take into account all relevant sources which usually have different nuanced emphases.  Very rarely is it a simple binary choice, human motivation is usually much more complex than that.  There is no single "smoking gun" which establishes "x" as being the reason why Japan surrendered on the day it did on the terms it surrendered on.  What can be said was the following factors were involved.

1.  The Soviet entry meant that the only offer on the table from its enemies was the Potsdam Declaration.
2.  The A-bomb meant that over time the entire Japanese race could be exterminated without the need for any enemy invasion of the Home Islands....

Alfred

The bombs were just one more facet in a war where 30-40 million humans died one way or another. A war where mass extermination was pretty much practiced by everyone. It is just what war has become in this modern age. Yes, it was a horrible way to die but if you could bring the other 30 million back to life and ask them if they died in any better way, I doubt many would volunteer that they did. We had the bomb, we used it. I am sure that any other power in the war would have done the same.

I have to admit, that I think it is amazing that the bomb has not been used since. Perhaps we should give ourselves a little credit.

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

The Japanese took Manchuria. They had to take China to secure Manchuria. The Philippine Islands were necessary to secure China. To secure the Philippine Islands, the US Pacific Fleet had to be neutralized.

My question is: if Japan were to have taken China and the Philippines, they would have had to garrison them just like the had to Manchuria. How long could they have sustained that? I mean, that's ALOT of territory to have hostile rule over...

Successful occupations of other countries in the last 100+ years have usually required 20 troops per 1000 population, higher if there is still active resistance. It's a rule of thumb for occupations that most militaries use today. It makes it difficult for a small country to occupy a much larger one, it requires a large number of troops under arms just to hold the territory. Japan's strategy in China was to hold the cities and only loosely patrol the surrounding countryside which allowed partisans to operate and chip away at the occupation. The empire was stretched pretty thin and as it shrank, they didn't get a higher concentration of troops as most empires get when they shrink because the losses of troops when they lost territory was almost complete.

In contrast, western powers tended to do what they could to save as many troops as possible when they lost territory. The UK saved a large percentage of the BEF at Dunkirk which they needed later. Germany kept the Falaise Gap open as long as possible to extract as many troops as they could from the encirclement. The Bushido Code caused Japan to waste a lot of troops that could have bolstered their defenses later.

There was some discussion over whether the entry of the USSR into the war was the tipping point or not. I don't know whether it was or not, but it may have been a contributing factor for the government of Japan, but the nukes was the excuse that allowed them to sell the surrender to the public and save face. The details about what was going on in Germany after Germany surrendered probably didn't get to the Japanese in anywhere near the detail available to us today, but they were probably aware that the Britih and Americans tended to treat those in conquered territories somewhat better than the Soviets did and they may have realized if they had to be occupied by someone, they might get a better deal from the Americans than the Soviets. Just a thought, hard to say for sure.

Well Alfred, I may not use the big words you do, but at least for the most part I am pleased to see we are saying the same things and I will certainly give you top marks for getting “different nuanced emphases” into a sentence [:)]

More seriously, just a few points:

“This thread is dealing with two quite separate subjects”.

No, it deals with three. The third questioning the premise that the USA caused the Pacific War due to its embargo against Japan. But we will leave that one for the moment and concentrate on your post.

The first topic you mentioned I do not intend to spend much time on. As you allude to in your answer, there is no definitive answer to this question – well Hirohito probably knew but he ain’t telling.

At the end of the day it comes down to which of the options one believes was the one that got the Japanese to surrender - unless you believe that both were required. I will say my piece one final time on that - simply the US ended the Pacific War – a war that they won, but were not responsible for causing or starting.

Moving to the “other subject”, in which you disappointingly dismiss people’s opinions as “hobby horses” – neglecting the fact that those “hobby horses” are reasoned, educated opinions often borne of much reading of a subject - and are equally disregarding of their "superficial" debate. But that is your style – it is what it is so no point going down that avenue again.

Credit where credit’s due – you have brought some good points to the table to add to this incredibly interesting subject.

1. I read AJP Taylor's work on the outbreak of WWII many years ago….. he came to the conclusion that it was the British March 1939 declaration to guarantee Poland which made WWII inevitable. From that point in time there were two set in concrete forces in play and only if one completely backed down, which was completely inconceivable, could a future WWII be averted.

This point goes to support, quite well I think, what I have been arguing about the fact that Versailles DOES NOT necessarily equal World War II. AJP Taylor himself stated that war became inevitable only in March 1939.

2. "Lebensraum" is a term which usually gets thrown about far too loosely. Hitler had a much more sophisticated view of what it meant. Firstly, there was the recovery of the Versailles imposed lost eastern territories. This objective was not really lebensraum to Hitler. What Hitler initially really meant by the term was that Germany needed, for economic reasons, an equivalent of the C19th American western expansion and the benefits that brought to the American economy. Due to geography and politics, for Germany this meant that the increase in market for German product was only possible to the east.

- There is a better word than loosely I think. The sentence would probably be more accurately presented thus: “Lebensraum" and Hitler’s ultimate goal are subjects which are all too often misunderstood and misinterpreted. [The same mistaken assumption was made in this thread and in the MWIF thread].
- I would also take issue with the next sentence which should have been written: “Hitler had a very specific vision of Lebensraum”. I disagree with your choice of language here. There was nothing particularly “sophisticated” about it – but it was clear in his mind and was his raison d’etre.
- Re the latter half of the paragraph. Indeed, this is exactly what I have been saying over the various threads on this subject and in this debate was mentioned in post 63.

3. Western opposition to Versailles was much less than is being presented. There were some misgivings about elements of it from some of the elites but overall there was no opposition to it. Lloyd George won an election on the slogan of making the Huns pay until the pips squeak. Clemenceau and the French nation saw it as being the equivalent, in effect, of what they had suffered in 1871 at Bismarck's hands. What fundamentally made the Germans so resentful of it was that it bore no resemblance to Wilson's 14 Points which was the basis upon which the October 1918 government of Prince Max had come to power seeking an armistice.

I am not sure of what period of time you are referring to here. I think that you may be referring to the early twenties rather than later. I would recommend Chamberlain and Appeasement by RAC Parker. Parker makes clear that – certainly in the UK – there was a very real wish to put relations with Germany onto a more normal footing. It is certainly true that this was generally less true of the French – even as the inter-war years progressed.

“Whether the 1919 Versailles Treaty had been made harsher or more lenient would not have made any difference to the German viewpoint. To them Versailles was simply a traditional European power peace treaty, albeit harsher than many but not unusual”.

Indeed, and was the point I made in posts 44 and 70.

4. It is just wrong to say that Versailles was not enforced.

I don’t think anyone did say that (though may have missed it). What was said was that it was not enforced to the letter, and for the length of time envisaged. The points you raise here are all true – and some are referred to in the earlier book I mentioned. However I am not sure the point about the pocket-battleships was quite correct! (but that is splitting hairs).

The final paragraph essentially confirms my arguments in this thread and I cannot really add to what you have said here as they are just extensions of the points I have made including:

- he became Chancellor in January 1933 of a coalition government, and even then only because Hindenburg was assured he would be kept under control by his non Nazi partners.

Hitler fooled his own people as much – if not more – than he fooled the Western politicians he danced around.

- That the Reichstag fire came……….out maneouver his coalition partners, can in no way at all be attributable to the Versailles Treaty.
- Nor can the 1934 SA purge be similarly blamed on Versailles.

As said there is so much that can – and did – happen in 20-years between Versailles and WWII that suggesting the latter was a foregone conclusion thanks directly to the former simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I am very interested in this debate, I've read some on the final days of the war, and recently signed up for a course at our local university on this topic (looked like an interesting elective):

History 440: WMD and Hiroshima in History and Memory
This course will examine the first and only use of what would later be called a “weapon of mass destruction,” namely the atomic bombs that President Harry S. Truman used to end the Second World War against Japan. Drawing on original source documents, and essays by a diverse assortment of leading scholars, we will examine the military and political context surrounding Truman’s decision to drop the bombs. We will also consider alternative strategies for ending the war, look at how historians have debated those strategies, and examine how Americans, and the Japanese, have remembered the atomic bombings in the years since the war ended. After reviewing and discussing the relevant literature, students will have a chance to put themselves in place of one of Truman’s colleagues in 1945, review all alternative strategies for the president, and give their own recommendation for the best way to bring the war to a conclusion.

I am hoping for an unbiased look, but I am interested in hearing the perspectives that the other students bring to the course. For those interested, here's the reading list:

Hiroshima in History and Memory by Michael J. Hogan (the instructor for the course)
Hiroshima by John Hersey
Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan, Revised Edition by J. Samuel Walker

warspite1

Hi Justus2. Sounds interesting! I've just had a look for the books on Amazon but sadly only one (top one) has any reviews. Would be good if you could post how the course is going (starts September?) and what the conclusions of the class are.

I will, I just ordered the books, classes start the last week of August.

Justus2,

"Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank is a very interesting read about this topic. Lots of military discussion which probably won't apply in your class, but there is a lot of talk about the staffing involved actually invading the home islands. Very daunting indeed.

One of the things that jumped out at me and may apply to your class discussion, was that Frank states that approximately 200,000 people in Asia were dying each month due to what was effectively a war-induced famine. Not to mention that winter was approaching that would likely boast those numbers. If true, those numbers are rarely discussed in the historical calculus of whether Truman was right or not.

Good luck with your class!
T Rav

ORIGINAL: T Rav

Justus2,

"Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank is a very interesting read about this topic. Lots of military discussion which probably won't apply in your class, but there is a lot of talk about the staffing involved actually invading the home islands. Very daunting indeed.

One of the things that jumped out at me and may apply to your class discussion, was that Frank states that approximately 200,000 people in Asia were dying each month due to what was effectively a war-induced famine. Not to mention that winter was approaching that would likely boast those numbers. If true, those numbers are rarely discussed in the historical calculus of whether Truman was right or not.

Good luck with your class!
T Rav

Thanks, I've heard about that book before, I will have to add it to my reading list! I read an article a year or so ago about the impact of the war on Japan's agricultural economy, and especially the impact of aerial mining on fishing. I know several here have mentioned it as well. I think a lot of people in the 'general public' who hear these arguments lose sight of the point you bring up. The choice wasn't between 'The Bomb' and waiting patiently for a surrender, there were thousands dying every day while the war drug on, whether we invaded or not.

Until the age of 62, I was still as strong as a bear, big as a football player, and tougher than shoe leather.
Former U.S. Army Ranger...
At age 62 a case of laryngitis was determined to be cancer...Neuroindicrine carcinoma.
Throat...both lungs...thirty to forty lymph nodes.
While it was "inoperable", it was NOT incurable.
The cure required many months of radiation to literally burn the cancer from my body.
The radiation treatments ended one day and all seemed fine, but as the months passed, my ability to breathe continued to decline, until now, I am left with 35% of my lungs.This was residual radiation still at work.
I am still strong, but run out of oxygen walking 12 feet with a small paper sack from the store unless I take my time.

The point is, even today we are learning about the residuals of radiation, but for that generation, it was an unknown quantum. That generation had suffered world wide with an economic depression, just to be forced into a world war.
Many were dying, military and civilian, world wide, on a daily basis. People were getting really tired of losing neighbors, friends, family to the war and all were desiring "a magic button" that would make the whole damned thing "go away".
Nearly every major power was working on that "magic button", and I have no doubt it would have been pushed by whomever developed it first.
My father and my uncles were in total agreement that when they heard of the bombs, and this news was followed by the end of that terrible world war, they were all grateful that THEY were going to live..

Of course, now, many years later we know the outcome, and no sane person wants to see further nuclear bombs, but that generation did not have the option to not "press the button"..

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I am very interested in this debate, I've read some on the final days of the war, and recently signed up for a course at our local university on this topic (looked like an interesting elective):

History 440: WMD and Hiroshima in History and Memory
This course will examine the first and only use of what would later be called a “weapon of mass destruction,” namely the atomic bombs that President Harry S. Truman used to end the Second World War against Japan. Drawing on original source documents, and essays by a diverse assortment of leading scholars, we will examine the military and political context surrounding Truman’s decision to drop the bombs. We will also consider alternative strategies for ending the war, look at how historians have debated those strategies, and examine how Americans, and the Japanese, have remembered the atomic bombings in the years since the war ended. After reviewing and discussing the relevant literature, students will have a chance to put themselves in place of one of Truman’s colleagues in 1945, review all alternative strategies for the president, and give their own recommendation for the best way to bring the war to a conclusion.

I am hoping for an unbiased look, but I am interested in hearing the perspectives that the other students bring to the course. For those interested, here's the reading list:

Hiroshima in History and Memory by Michael J. Hogan (the instructor for the course)
Hiroshima by John Hersey
Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan, Revised Edition by J. Samuel Walker

I'd be leery about this course. "First and only use of what would later be called a weapon of mass destruction..."

Normally I see poison gas (and biological weapons) in the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' category. WW I, the Iran/Iraq war both featured chemical weapons. Just saying.

ORIGINAL: wegman58

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I am very interested in this debate, I've read some on the final days of the war, and recently signed up for a course at our local university on this topic (looked like an interesting elective):

History 440: WMD and Hiroshima in History and Memory
This course will examine the first and only use of what would later be called a “weapon of mass destruction,” namely the atomic bombs that President Harry S. Truman used to end the Second World War against Japan. Drawing on original source documents, and essays by a diverse assortment of leading scholars, we will examine the military and political context surrounding Truman’s decision to drop the bombs. We will also consider alternative strategies for ending the war, look at how historians have debated those strategies, and examine how Americans, and the Japanese, have remembered the atomic bombings in the years since the war ended. After reviewing and discussing the relevant literature, students will have a chance to put themselves in place of one of Truman’s colleagues in 1945, review all alternative strategies for the president, and give their own recommendation for the best way to bring the war to a conclusion.

I am hoping for an unbiased look, but I am interested in hearing the perspectives that the other students bring to the course. For those interested, here's the reading list:

Hiroshima in History and Memory by Michael J. Hogan (the instructor for the course)
Hiroshima by John Hersey
Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan, Revised Edition by J. Samuel Walker

I'd be leery about this course. "First and only use of what would later be called a weapon of mass destruction..."

Normally I see poison gas (and biological weapons) in the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' category. WW I, the Iran/Iraq war both featured chemical weapons. Just saying.

warspite1

Just got back from the Imperial War Museum, London having learned an interesting fact. Only 3% of deaths were caused by gas. I assumed it would have been higher purely given the prominence gas in WWI is given.

The ability to come up with counter-measures blunted the weapons effectiveness (in terms of fatalities) after the initial surprise attacks.

Was gas a WMD? Never thought about it until now.

ORIGINAL: wegman58

WW I showed the horror of chemical weapons; no major war has seen them used since - barbarian savages have but not the major powers.

Napalm is a chemical weapon. Agent Orange is a chemical weapon. Unless you are saying the US is a nation of barbarian savages?

The judges at Nuremberg found it appropriate to apply the rules laid down in the Hague Convention to everyone, not limited to those who ratified it. The moral understanding of the appropriate use of bombardment was there.

Strangely enough, I do not remember any Allied personnel or organizations being tried for war crimes.

Also, on the matter of apology, some argue that Pearl Harbor strikes were forced by the US declared oil embargo, forcing Japanese hand.

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I am very interested in this debate, I've read some on the final days of the war, and recently signed up for a course at our local university on this topic (looked like an interesting elective):

History 440: WMD and Hiroshima in History and Memory
This course will examine the first and only use of what would later be called a “weapon of mass destruction,” namely the atomic bombs that President Harry S. Truman used to end the Second World War against Japan. Drawing on original source documents, and essays by a diverse assortment of leading scholars, we will examine the military and political context surrounding Truman’s decision to drop the bombs. We will also consider alternative strategies for ending the war, look at how historians have debated those strategies, and examine how Americans, and the Japanese, have remembered the atomic bombings in the years since the war ended. After reviewing and discussing the relevant literature, students will have a chance to put themselves in place of one of Truman’s colleagues in 1945, review all alternative strategies for the president, and give their own recommendation for the best way to bring the war to a conclusion.

I am hoping for an unbiased look, but I am interested in hearing the perspectives that the other students bring to the course. For those interested, here's the reading list:

Hiroshima in History and Memory by Michael J. Hogan (the instructor for the course)
Hiroshima by John Hersey
Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan, Revised Edition by J. Samuel Walker

warspite1

Hi Justus2 - how is the course going?

I'm sure all of you have read Paul Fussell's essay, Thank God for the Atom Bomb. Wonderful essay that also highlights the role of experience in determining one's outlook on the atomic bombings.

Thank God for the Atom Bomb Text

Amazing family history! My grandfather who retired a CWO (he was commissioned with a bridge rank during the war) after 30 years in the navy, served in both oceans during WW2 and was part of D-day (up real close pulling sunk LCUs out of the invasion lanes) and Iwo Jima, and served in Korea would tell you no; however, though I never challenged him on this, I always found his notion about the use of the Atomic bombs on Japan at odds with his own experience as part of operation crossroads where he lamented his treatment, and that of his fellow sailors.

To him it was always insedious that American sailors were used, at least in his mind, as human test subjects; however, this was "fine" to do to Japanese women and children in service of "ending the war quickly."

So my opinion is yes, we do owe them an apology. Wholesale murder of civilians in the name of winning a war is wrong, and now would be rightly classed as a "war crime." Furthermore, it isn't really revisionism when main stream historians have largely come to the conclusion Japan was trying to float surrender under the terms that the emperor stays, which was ignored by both the Soviet Union and the United States in favor of achieving their own strategic gains visa vis their own allies.

The Soviets did not want the war to end before their enterance into the Asian land war, and the United States... Well come to your own conclusions. My thought is they wanted to use the atomic bomb to test, and then demonstrate to the Soviets, the destructive power of the weapon.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

On Tinian Island on a fateful day in August 1945 my father and the rest of his crew were lazing around as they weren't scheduled to fly their B-29 anywhere. An officer appeared and told them to report to Operations. Once there they were told that they were a Super Dumbo, an observation plane, and would that they would also report any downed planes. They were issued dark goggles and told that there would be a bright flash that they weren't supposed to look at. Their plane was loaded with gas and that's it. They were part of a mission over Nagasaki. There would be a weather plane, 2 Super Dumbos, a plane with a bomb and later another plane for damage assessment. My father's bewildered crew boarded, took off from Tinian's North Field and tried to figure out what was going on. A single plane with one bomb? They witnessed the second A bomb used in anger. They were initially horrified by what they saw and on the way back to Tinian reported a downed P-47. By the time they landed they had realized that they had witnessed a chance to end the war. They wanted one of these bombs for every B-29 so that Japan could finally be defeated and then they could go home.

Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong.

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

I don't intend this to be a political football,

and now would be rightly classed as a "war crime."

Modern sensibilities should not be used to judge historical actions. Almost every military effort in the past would have its leaders considered war criminals.

Also, "Modern Sensibilities" are not universally accepted by members of the military or historians who try to understand how conflicts begin and can be brought to a successful close - and unfortunately closure may be much more bloody than many in todays public understand.

If Truman actually knew the true state of the Japanese war capacity he may well have never used the A-bomb and most certainly would not have pressed for a Soviet entry into the Pac/Chinese theatre. In point of fact there was not even any need to invade the home islands. Japan was so thoroughly attrited that they could do little to extend any offensive operations. The Allied Generals and Admirals were fixated on the notion that Japan had to be invaded in the conventional sense. The economy and basics of civilization were in utter collapse. A further year of air and naval blockade and even the Japanese Army would have been forced to see that reality. The truly ironic twist to that non-Abomb scenario is that millions of Japanese may have perished through famine and disease.

I just finished a quite decent book on the last few weeks in Japan: The Fall of Japan by Wm. Craig.

War, by all accepted human norms - is a big, massive, ongoing crime.

Crimes, as accepted by definition of criminal law all in all countries, occur in every war - from murder to rape, theft, and looting.
These common crimes are punished by every nation's military authorities in the civilized world - even during war.
Crimes contrary to the signed international conventions for legitimate war are similarly settled between warring nations during wartime.
An example I remember being taught when I was in the Army undergoing NBC Training was a case brought against the United States by Germany in the 2nd World War. It seems the USAAF dropped gas munitions in two incidents over Italy, for which Germany sued in the international court - as being clearly against the Geneva Convention....The US actually apologized and settled the damages...during the war.

"War Crimes" in the post Nuremberg Trial sense - is a modern invention.
The problem with "War Crimes" is that it is only applied by the victor over the vanquished... "legal charges" that are given the cover of law - but they evade the entire accepted principal of law.... one law equally applied to all - an accepted norm.

So charges of "war crimes" in the post WW2 sense, are to me anyway, rather empty.


B

The truly ironic twist to that non-Abomb scenario is that millions of Japanese may have perished through famine and disease.

Not "May", more deaths would have been a certainty - along with probable Soviet annexation of more Japanese Islands than they currently STILL occupy, and the resultant death of the Japanese who would have resisted (most likely 85% plus).

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy." William Tecumseh Sherman

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

If Truman actually knew the true state of the Japanese war capacity he may well have never used the A-bomb and most certainly would not have pressed for a Soviet entry into the Pac/Chinese theatre. In point of fact there was not even any need to invade the home islands. Japan was so thoroughly attrited that they could do little to extend any offensive operations. The Allied Generals and Admirals were fixated on the notion that Japan had to be invaded in the conventional sense. The economy and basics of civilization were in utter collapse. A further year of air and naval blockade and even the Japanese Army would have been forced to see that reality. The truly ironic twist to that non-Abomb scenario is that millions of Japanese may have perished through famine and disease.

I just finished a quite decent book on the last few weeks in Japan: The Fall of Japan by Wm. Craig.

That's true, but only if you reject metanarratives and the notion of absolute humanist values, which I do not. Even without appealing to religion if it is wrong to make war on civilian populations, then it was always the case that it is wrong. You cannot appeal to time, or culture to negate this. Otherwise, everything becomes relative and you can never pass judgement on anything outside of particular cultural contexts. So genocide in Bosnia can only be judged in reference to a very specific cultural frame of Bosnian Serbs in the 1990s, or the actions of ISIS become "crimes" only in the context of that particular culture.

In other words you lose all power to critique the world based on notions of justice and the concepts of right and wrong. You paralyzed and forced to concede things like female castration on the basis of culture and time.