At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[cooltigger21 0]

Jeff would be willing to allow untold numbers of allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, much more than died in the two atomic blasts, in an invasion mof the Japanese home islands, to make himself feel better. Make no mistake about it. That is what it would have taken to bring the war to an end without those two atomic bombs.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Jeff would be willing to allow untold numbers of allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, much more than died in the two atomic blasts, in an invasion mof the Japanese home islands, to make himself feel better. Make no mistake about it. That is what it would have taken to bring the war to an end without those two atomic bombs.

Many experts and historians versed in the era disagree with you. Our only options weren't a bloody land invasion ala D-Day or murdering upwards of 130,000 civilians via the atomic bomb.

[AUDub 11,147]

Jeff would be willing to allow untold numbers of allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, much more than died in the two atomic blasts, in an invasion mof the Japanese home islands, to make himself feel better. Make no mistake about it. That is what it would have taken to bring the war to an end without those two atomic bombs.

Many experts and historians versed in the era disagree with you. Our only options weren't a bloody land invasion ala D-Day or murdering upwards of 130,000 civilians via the atomic bomb.

Would you mind citing a few, Titan? I'd appreciate it.

[cooltigger21 0]

Jeff would be willing to allow untold numbers of allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, much more than died in the two atomic blasts, in an invasion mof the Japanese home islands, to make himself feel better. Make no mistake about it. That is what it would have taken to bring the war to an end without those two atomic bombs.

Many experts and historians versed in the era disagree with you. Our only options weren't a bloody land invasion ala D-Day or murdering upwards of 130,000 civilians via the atomic bomb.

I've read all the revisionist history and that is exactly what it is, pure revisionist bs. These are the same people who say Roosevelt deliberately let Japn attack us to get us into the war.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't have time to gather a ton at the moment. I read about this extensively a few years ago. Here's a brief summary from Wikipedia with some citations to get us started:

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,^{[citation needed]} concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, they reported:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

^[91]

^[92]

This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population.^[93][94] One of Nitze's most influential sources was Prince Fumimaro Konoe, who responded to a question asking whether Japan would have surrendered if the atomic bombs had not been dropped by saying resistance would have continued through November or December, 1945.^[95]

Historians such as Bernstein, Hasegawa, and Newman have criticized Nitze for drawing a conclusion they say went far beyond what the available evidence warranted, in order to promote the reputation of the Air Force at the expense of the Army and Navy.^[96][97][98]

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

^[99]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,^[100][101] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

" Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

^[92]

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

.. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

^[102]

Stephen Peter Rosen of Harvard believes that a submarine blockade would have been sufficient to force Japan to surrender.^[103]

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.^[104] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.^[105] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.^[106] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland…It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy…

^[107]

Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,^[108] it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.^[109] Hasegawa wrote:

On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs… alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. Without the Soviet entry in the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardments, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so.

^[104]

Ward Wilson wrote that "after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons", and that the Japanese Supreme Council did not bother to convene after the atomic bombings because they were barely more destructive than previous bombings. He wrote that instead, the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island removed Japan's last diplomatic and military options for negotiating a conditional surrender, and this is what prompted Japan's surrender. He wrote that attributing Japan's surrender to a 'miracle weapon', instead of start of the Russian invasion, saved face for Japan and enhanced the USA's world standing.^[110]

[TitanTiger 20,472]

A bit more:

On the question of what role the bombings played in Japan's surrender, there are varied opinions, ranging from the bombings being the deciding factor,^[157] to the bombs being a minor factor, to the entire question being unknowable.^[158]

That the bombings were the decisive factor in ending the war was the mainstream position in the United States from 1945 through the 1960s, and is termed by some the "traditionalist" view, or pejoratively as the "patriotic orthodoxy."^[159]

Others argue that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was instead primary or decisive.^{[160][161][162][163]} In the US, this view has been particularly advanced by Robert Pape and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, and found convincing by some,^[164][165] while criticized by others.^[166][167]

Robert Pape also argues that:

Military vulnerability, not civilian vulnerability, accounts for Japan's decision to surrender. Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb. Rather than concern for the costs and risks to the population, or even Japan's overall military weakness vis-a-vis the United States, the decisive factor was Japanese leaders' recognition that their strategy for holding the most important territory at issue—the home islands—could not succeed.

^[168]

In some Japanese writing about the surrender, the Soviet entry into the war is considered the primary reason or equal with the atomic bombs in many accounts,^[169] while others, such as the work of Sadao Asada, give primacy to the atomic bombings, particularly their impact on the emperor.^[170] The primacy of the Soviet entry as a reason for surrender is a long-standing view among some Japanese historians, and has appeared in some Japanese junior high school textbooks.^[170]

The argument about the Soviet role in Japan's surrender is connected to the argument about the Soviet role in America's decision to drop the bomb:^[162] both emphasize the importance of the Soviet Union, while the former argues that Japan surrendered to the US out of fear of the Soviet Union, and the latter argues that the US dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviet Union.

Still others have argued that war-weary Japan would likely have surrendered regardless, due to a collapse of the economy, lack of army, food, and industrial materials, threat of internal revolution, and talk of surrender since earlier in the year, while others find this unlikely, arguing that Japan may well have, or likely would have, put up a spirited resistance.^[159]

The Japanese historian Sadao Asada argues that the ultimate decision to surrender was a personal decision by the emperor, influenced by the atomic bombings.^[170]

I realize there are people on both sides, but I merely mention this to counter the view that there's anything close to a unanimous or possibly even majority thought that the atomic bombs were the primary reason for surrender and thus absolutely necessary to avoid other worse options.

[AUDub 11,147]

Thank you, Titan. I'll parse it as the day goes on.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

A few more citations:

Historian and former Naval officer Martin Sherwin has summarized the situation, stating, "The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare." (Sherwin, pg. xxiv).

Echoing the concern of Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Captain Ellis Zacharias that the Allies became overly dependent on military means, Leon Sigal writes, "At worst, withholding force might have prolonged the war for a while at a time when little combat was taking place; it would not have altered the final result. Yet restraint could have significantly reduced the gratuitous suffering on both sides, especially for noncombatants." Sigal concludes, "it could be argued that the United States behaved as if the objective of inducing Japan to surrender was subordinated to another objective - in Stimson's words, that of exerting 'maximum force with maximum speed.' American policy was guided by an implicit assumption that only the escalation of military pressure could bring the war to a rapid conclusion." (Sigal, pg. 219).

Regarding claims that the atomic bombings saved lives, Gar Alperovitz has noted, "It has been argued in this connection that using the atomic bomb was less costly in human life than the continuation of conventional bombing would have been. Apart from the fact that accounts which urge such a view commonly leave aside questions concerning [modifying the unconditional] surrender formula and the impact of the Russian attack, by early August 1945 very few significant Japanese civilian targets remained to be bombed. Moreover, on July 25 a new targeting directive had been issued which altered bombing priorities." "Attacks on urban centers became only the fourth priority, after railway targets, aircraft production, and ammunition depots." "...the new directive (as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted) 'was about to be implemented when the war ended.'". (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 342).

One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).

In 1948 Sec. of War Henry Stimson published his memoirs, ghost-written by McGeorge Bundy. In them Stimson revealed, "It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war". Stimson and Bundy continued, "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 628-629).

Robert Butow has affirmed Stimson's position: "Secretary of War Stimson has raised the question of whether an earlier surrender of Japan could have been achieved had the United States followed a different diplomatic and military policy during the closing months of the war. In the light of available evidence, a final answer in the affirmative seems possible, even probable." Butow continues, "Although it cannot be proved, it is possible that the Japanese government would have accepted the Potsdam Proclamation immediately had Secretary Stimson's reference to the imperial structure been retained. Such a declaration, while promising destruction if Japan resisted, would have offered hope if she surrendered. This was precisely Stimson's intention." Butow adds, "The Japanese military... interpreted the omission of any commitment on the Throne as evidence of the Allied intention to destroy forever the foundation stone of the Japanese nation. Here was an invaluable trump card unintentionally given them by the Allies, and the militarists played it with unfailing skill." (Butow, pg. 140-141).

Martin Sherwin has also followed up on Stimson's observation: "That unconditional surrender remained an obstacle to peace in the wake of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Soviet declaration of war - until the government of the United States offered the necessary (albeit veiled) assurance that neither Emperor nor throne would be destroyed - suggests the possibility, which even Stimson later recognized, that neither bomb may have been necessary; and certainly that the second one was not." (Sherwin, pg. 237, emphasis in original). As noted earlier, Stimson explained, "the Allied reply [to Japan's 8/10 surrender offer]... implicitly recognized the Emperor's position" (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 627).

http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm

[aujeff11 6,243]

Did the survivors of the firebombings have to endure radiation poisoning only to die later from it? Firebombs are atrocities in and of themselves as I said in my previous statement. You must be desperate to cling to this defense. The Atom bomb will always be brought up first because it was the United States that figuratively speaking broke the seal.

This is special pleading. No one knew at the time if the bombs would even work (different types of bombs were used on each city), let alone what the long term consequences would be. Downfall had plans to use multiple bombs to clear the landing sites. We would have needed quite a few more purple hearts. Even a decade later, the long-term effects were not understood. In the 1950s, both the United States and the Soviet Union tested bombs in the open air. Both the United States and the Soviet Union put concentrations of troops within a certain distance of the detonation to see what the effects of exposure to the shock wave would be.

I think it is grossly unreasonable to claim some sort of moral turpitude based on something which no one knew would occur. Once again, the United States wanted to end the madness, wanted to end the war. Far, far more people, including Japanese civilians, would have died if a conventional invasion of Japan were carried out. The bombs ended the war, and that was a good thing. The United States ended a war they did not start, and during which the Japanese slaughtered millions of people and visited gross horrors on other, unoffending people. That was a good thing.

This is just more special pleading; this is just another example of appealing to your mystical demon from the heart of the atom. Pleading???? The atrocities of the Japanese do not and will never prevent me from from defending the innocent population that died by the means of our technological surplus. You admit that the United States committed War crimes in the firebombings and the A bombs, but then you claim that those events helped end the war and that is a good thing. Does the end always dictate the limits of the means to you because you certainly are preaching it right now. Justifying the radiation poisoning that occurred on the Japanese population from the bombs by claiming ignorance is nothing but a cheap excuse.

I can continue to firebombing though if you would like. I hear them Nazis tried to firebomb the shizit out of Britain too. What great company we are in.

Yeah, Britain (and we) returned the favor in Dresden.

See below

They committed war crimes just like we did. The only difference was that we were the victors and we were granted immunity from being prosecuted for the war crimes.

I don't deny it. Go to my comparison post and answer that. ​Why must I compare the various atrocities? Again, I have never defended the atrocities. What I did say was that dropping the A-bombs are the biggest war crimes in world history. By default, the list of the war crimes you have posted don't even compare. We essentially answered fire with fire so claiming "they started it" doesnt even matter to me.

I have never defended Japan's militant tactics. Dont put words in my mouth.

Good. Because that's not what my accusation was.

Hardly

I never would have guessed, given how emotive your arguments in the post I responded to were.

I have already figured that out

[homersapien 11,362]

Coincidentally, I have just started a new book on this (general) subject:

A Higher Form of Killing by Diana Preston. http://www.telegraph...na-Preston.html

It discusses how during April-May of 1915, the introduction of aerial bombing, unrestricted submarine warfare and poisonous gas changed the nature of modern war.

Includes some interesting discussions on the very concept of "restricted" warfare.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

The Bombing Survey was conducted after the war. We should really be looking at the information available before the end of the war. Truman was only notified of the Manhattan Project on the night of FDR's death, April 12th, and received a full briefing on the 24th. He gave approval of Operation Downfall on June 18th -- about a month before the A-bomb was successfully tested in New Mexico. The invasion of Kyushu was thus set to begin on November 1st. It wasn't hypothetical and one only has to review the enormous staging & assembly effort of the Normandy invasion to contemplate a doubling of that same effort to be made in the NE Pacific. Truman wrote in his diary that his choices for ending the war were either the invasion or to continue to bomb (i.e. conventionally) & blockade. After the successful test, Truman gave the go-ahead for using the A-bomb on July 28th. Estimates of enemy strength on Kyushu were in the 600k range. Keep in mind that Okinawa had about 100k enemy soldiers and that battle resulted about 12k killed & 50k total casualties (American.) Small wonder he jumped at the chance to avoid an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

[AUDub 11,147]

Pleading???? The atrocities of the Japanese do not and will never prevent me from from defending the innocent population that died by the means of our technological surplus.

Yes. Special pleading.

You admit that the United States committed War crimes in the firebombings and the A bombs, but then you claim that those events helped end the war and that is a good thing. Does the end always dictate the limits of the means to you because you certainly are preaching it right now. Justifying the radiation poisoning that occurred on the Japanese population from the bombs by claiming ignorance is nothing but a cheap excuse.

I'm justifying Truman's decision to use the bombs given the information available to him. Your biases are overwhelming your sense.

Why must I compare the various atrocities? Again, I have never defended the atrocities. What I did say was that dropping the A-bombs are the biggest war crimes in world history. By default, the list of the war crimes you have posted don't even compare. We essentially answered fire with fire so claiming "they started it" doesnt even matter to me.

Because I tire of your special pleading. 6,000,000-10,000,000 civilian murders vs. 300,000 for the bombs and and they're 'by default" the biggest war crime? **** no. That's absolutely atrocious logic.

I have already figured that out

LOL! Touchy, huh?

[cooltigger21 0]

The military leaders, namely Tojo would not have surrendered. We had just gone through a long 4 years of fighting and dying for a few yards of ground at a time. It was clear Japan was going to lose. That became pretty well a given after midway and especially after the battle of Leyte Gulf. Still they fought fanatically and died instead of surrender. As has been noted the emporer tried to intervene and was nearly taken out because of it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The military leaders, namely Tojo would not have surrendered. We had just gone through a long 4 years of fighting and dying for a few yards of ground at a time. It was clear Japan was going to lose. That became pretty well a given after midway and especially after the battle of Leyte Gulf. Still they fought fanatically and died instead of surrender. As has been noted the emporer tried to intervene and was nearly taken out because of it.

Again, this is a very disputed point. Merely repeating it as if it's some sort of ironclad fact does not make your case.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Pleading???? The atrocities of the Japanese do not and will never prevent me from from defending the innocent population that died by the means of our technological surplus.

Yes. Special pleading.

You admit that the United States committed War crimes in the firebombings and the A bombs, but then you claim that those events helped end the war and that is a good thing. Does the end always dictate the limits of the means to you because you certainly are preaching it right now. Justifying the radiation poisoning that occurred on the Japanese population from the bombs by claiming ignorance is nothing but a cheap excuse.

I'm justifying Truman's decision to use the bombs given the information available to him. Your biases are overwhelming your sense.

Why must I compare the various atrocities? Again, I have never defended the atrocities. What I did say was that dropping the A-bombs are the biggest war crimes in world history. By default, the list of the war crimes you have posted don't even compare. We essentially answered fire with fire so claiming "they started it" doesnt even matter to me.

Because I tire of your special pleading. 6,000,000-10,000,000 civilian murders vs. 300,000 for the bombs and and they're 'by default" the biggest war crime? **** no. That's absolutely atrocious logic. You are still talking about the military. I am still not talking about the Japanese Military. You are combining all of the war crimes of the Japanese military against the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indochinese, and the Indonesians, in all of their separate events, and comparing it to the three day event of the two bombs. That is how lost you are. You don't even know how to apply the term special pleading, good grief.

I have already figured that out

LOL! Touchy, huh?

Nope

[AUDub 11,147]

You are still talking about the military. I am still not talking about the Japanese Military.

I am talking about the Empire of Japan.

You are combining all of the war crimes of the Japanese military against the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indochinese, and the Indonesians, in all of their separate events, and comparing it to the three day event of the two bombs. That is how lost you are. You don't even know how to apply the term special pleading, good grief.

A distinction without a difference.

For example, would you not consider the implementation of this policy which lead to roughly 3,000,000 over 3 years a war crime? The A-bombs are paltry in comparison.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

The military leaders, namely Tojo would not have surrendered. We had just gone through a long 4 years of fighting and dying for a few yards of ground at a time. It was clear Japan was going to lose. That became pretty well a given after midway and especially after the battle of Leyte Gulf. Still they fought fanatically and died instead of surrender. As has been noted the emporer tried to intervene and was nearly taken out because of it.

Again, this is a very disputed point. Merely repeating it as if it's some sort of ironclad fact does not make your case.

I believe that is the point -- that surrender was in dispute. We know that surrender to the Japanese military was anathema -- close to 2M Army troops were stationed in the home islands. To think that they would surrender without first putting up a spirited fight borders on wishful thinking, especially in light of the defenses of previous islands such as Okinawa, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Peleliu & Saipan. The extraordinary actions of the Emperor thankfully brought an end to the madness.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The military leaders, namely Tojo would not have surrendered. We had just gone through a long 4 years of fighting and dying for a few yards of ground at a time. It was clear Japan was going to lose. That became pretty well a given after midway and especially after the battle of Leyte Gulf. Still they fought fanatically and died instead of surrender. As has been noted the emporer tried to intervene and was nearly taken out because of it.

Again, this is a very disputed point. Merely repeating it as if it's some sort of ironclad fact does not make your case.

I believe that is the point -- that surrender was in dispute. We know that surrender to the Japanese military was anathema -- close to 2M Army troops were stationed in the home islands. To think that they would surrender without first putting up a spirited fight borders on wishful thinking, especially in light of the defenses of previous islands such as Okinawa, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Peleliu & Saipan. The extraordinary actions of the Emperor thankfully brought an end to the madness.

That may be your point, but it isn't cooltigger's. His is clearly stated:

"The military leaders, namely Tojo

would not have surrendered

. We had just gone through a long 4 years of fighting and dying for a few yards of ground at a time."

[japantiger 4,051]

After having survived the war in Europe, my Dad was on Eniwetok the day the bombs were dropped; preparing for the invasion of the Japanese main islands. Hard to second guess this decision after the experiences of the overall war and particularly the then recent invasions of Okinawa and the Philippines. My Dad certainly never second guessed the decision. He certainly felt it justified....given his perspective, I can't say I have any issue with the decision.

[cooltigger21 0]

We had reduced every major city to rubble with the B-29 bombings. Tokyo was all but destroyed but yet all that didn't cause a surrender, There may have been a few who wanted to surrender but the ones who could bring that about had no intention of doing so. This was a mentality that surrender was a disgrace. We'd witnessed this time and again previously. You seriously expect people who had fought so fanatically in all the previous battles over conquered territory to just give up and surrender the home islands without a similar effort without the dropping of those two bombs. Some still wanted to fight on evne then. Those two atom bombs gave the emporer the chance to step in and publicly reach out to the Allies.

[aujeff11 6,243]

You are still talking about the military. I am still not talking about the Japanese Military.

I am talking about the Empire of Japan.

You are combining all of the war crimes of the Japanese military against the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indochinese, and the Indonesians, in all of their separate events, and comparing it to the three day event of the two bombs. That is how lost you are. You don't even know how to apply the term special pleading, good grief.

A distinction without a difference.

For example, would you not consider the implementation of this policy which lead to roughly 3,000,000 over 3 years a war crime? The A-bombs are paltry in comparison.

Yeah I would consider that a war crime. But You can't list all of the war crimes and label them as one. Americans killed over a million by firebombings and by the atomic bombs as well. As I pointed out earlier, both were considered "crimes to humanity" at the Nuremberg trials. Not to mention on American war crime side, we held concentration camps for our citizens with Japanese ties. I am glad we went to war with Japan to atone for their war crimes but like I said many times, the two A bombs were not necessary. We answered atrocity with atrocity.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

We had reduced every major city to rubble with the B-29 bombings. Tokyo was all but destroyed but yet all that didn't cause a surrender, There may have been a few who wanted to surrender but the ones who could bring that about had no intention of doing so. This was a mentality that surrender was a disgrace. We'd witnessed this time and again previously. You seriously expect people who had fought so fanatically in all the previous battles over conquered territory to just give up and surrender the home islands without a similar effort without the dropping of those two bombs. Some still wanted to fight on evne then. Those two atom bombs gave the emporer the chance to step in and publicly reach out to the Allies.

You are still in supposition mode, assuming that which you need to prove. I've given you multiple factual reasons that experts (even at the time) believed that the atomic bombs were not our only option to end this war vs a prolonged and bloody invasion. The Japanese had already sued for peace. They were already in the mode to negotiate a peaceful end to the war.

There were "some" in Germany that wished to fight to the end as well. But what 'some' want doesn't decide things. It's what the people in a position to make a decision want to do.

[AUDub 11,147]

You are still in supposition mode, assuming that which you need to prove. I've given you multiple factual reasons that experts (even at the time) believed that the atomic bombs were not our only option to end this war vs a prolonged and bloody invasion. The Japanese had already sued for peace. They were already in the mode to negotiate a peaceful end to the war.

I touched on this in a prior post.

Are you aware of the nature of Japan's attempts at negotiating a conditional surrender?

They just asked to stop fighting in exchange for nothing. They wanted to keep their empire. Asking to keep the empire is a hoax offer. Japan was a threat to the region as long as that regime remained in place.

The Japanese diplomatic traffic in their codes, which we had long since broken, between Foreign Minister Togo and Ambassador Sato, the ambassador to the USSR, would be a good read for you.

Here

Togo was the most dovish member of the Supreme War Council that was running the place.

Togo wanted the Soviets to broker a peace deal, and tried first the Soviet Ambassador to Japan and then his Japanese counterpart. Togo didn't have much success, partly because the Soviets were looking at Japanese territory hungrily, and partly because he wouldn't commit to any actual conditions. And there was no way he could, since he hadn't bothered to inform the military (the folks in charge) that he was doing this. Sato regularly asked if he had any actual negotiating authority i.e. whether the military was on board and regularly got noncommittal replies.

Sato finally told his boss that the best Japan could get was "virtually the equivalent of unconditional surrender". Togo replied that they were not interested in getting the USSR to broker a deal that was "anything like unconditional surrender". Sato tried to clarify that when he said "unconditional surrender" he of course meant that the emperor would remain so. Togo's reply was not "Sure!" or even "That doesn't go far enough, but it's a step in the right direction", it was "we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever," and Japan is totally going to fight to the death.

And the American decision makers were reading this in effectively real time. Broken codes, remember? They knew that these half-assed peace feelers didn't have the military's OK. They were reading the military traffic that showed how energetically Japan was preparing for the final battle.

Now regarding our expectation for said battle, go read up on Iwo Jima (20,000 enemy combatants, 200 captured), Saipan (24,000 enemy combatants, 900 captured, 1000 commit suicide. Women and children that refused to jump were motivated with bayonets), and Okinawa(Over 100,000 enemy combatants, 7000 captured mostly Okinawan conscripts, AS MANY AS 150,000 CIVILIANS COMMIT SUICIDE, many again forced to do so at the point of a bayonet). Truman probably realized, and was very likely correct, that it was a virtual certainty that A-bomb attacks would have been paltry in comparison, though his motivation was to just get the damn thing over with.

Actually, they already were compared to the conventional bombing campaign, but he probably wasn't aware of that.

There was a damn good excuse for creating that huge stock of Purple Hearts we're very likely still using today.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I think the point is, the Japanese were coming to the table trying to negotiate an end to the war...which flies completely in the face of the notion that they were hardwired kamikazes that would fight to the bitter end no matter what.

[AUDub 11,147]

I think the point is, the Japanese were coming to the table trying to negotiate an end to the war...which flies completely in the face of the notion that they were hardwired kamikazes that would fight to the bitter end no matter what.

Nope. Foreign minister Togo was, but behind everyone else in his government's (i.e. the military's) back. He was in no position to speak for the Empire of Japan in its entirety. Even then, even with the offer of preservation of the Emperor's title, he said that they could not accept those terms.

This attempt at negotiation was laughable.