Was it necessary to drop the bomb?

[Elrohir]

The article is a synopsis of the book, so you are saying the whole book is crap, even though it was widely critically acclaimed by his peers? You obviously can't debate or you would provide something other than the article is crap.

If the book is accurately reflected in the article, then it's crap. I don't know if that article does it justice, though, so I'll refrain from judging it. And in case you're blind, I did provide something other than "that's crap" - see below.

Japan had two provisos only, The emperor should be spared and he should remain the Emperor, both of which happened anyway.

EDIT:Elrohir I had a look actually I can find no mention of your secondary terms, the US demanded an unconditional surrender and that nothing else was acceptable, I don't seem to be able to find Japan saying what you claim can you link it?

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

In fact can you back up your statement as communiques by Japanese saying the exact opposite that they were in fact prepared to accept all the terms provided the emperor was spared and retained power, which as I said happened anyway, these pieces of evidence seem to conflict with all of your statement.

Where's your source on that? And anyway, if the US wanted to have Hirohito executed for his crimes, (Which we didn't) then it was our right to demand that. We had every right to demand an unconditional surrender, and to attack Japan until they met our terms.

 

[Perfection]

Well it's not like it was gonna drop itself.

Moderator Action: Spam - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Irish Caesar]

That's what I don't understand where was the issue with just giving the Emperor and his generals what they wanted it was hollow anyway, and let's face it they got it anyway?

I know; it's disgusting that Hirohito kept the throne.

It's not just the book, it's the critical acclaim and it's nomination for awards, obviously his peers thought it was worthy too?

That and a buck will get you a Coke.

That says a lot to me; so does anyone really want to discuss what happened? Or is this all just the usual accept the facts as presented by propaganda, move on, nothing to see here?

Personally, I'm not interested in "what-if history" (unless it has to do with a certain conflict in the Southern US in the 1860's, but that's another story...); but it seems like not accepting the facts as presented by propaganda would be to allege that the United States basically did it to bomb yellow people, and that's a heavy allegation. There are a lot of good comments here that the US really did it to keep the USSR out of the conflict and to warn them against American power. Perhaps that's true, and such an action probably saved lives. Is it fair that it cost Japanese lives to save American and Russian lives? No, nothing is fair, but the world wanted to not be fighting and such a show of force accomplished that. Was it overkill? Firebombing Tokyo apparently wasn't, so why would this be?

As a final note, I will say that I oversimplified about radiation damage, nonconformist is correct that radiation was known to be very harmful, however, we still don't really have as much of an understanding of it as we'd like, and that's after years of studying survivors from fission weapons.

 

[Sidhe]

I know; it's disgusting that Hirohito kept the throne.



That and a buck will get you a Coke.



Personally, I'm not interested in "what-if history" (unless it has to do with a certain conflict in the Southern US in the 1860's, but that's another story...); but it seems like not accepting the facts as presented by propaganda would be to allege that the United States basically did it to bomb yellow people, and that's a heavy allegation. There are a lot of good comments here that the US really did it to keep the USSR out of the conflict and to warn them against American power. Perhaps that's true, and such an action probably saved lives. Is it fair that it cost Japanese lives to save American and Russian lives? No, nothing is fair, but the world wanted to not be fighting and such a show of force accomplished that. Was it overkill? Firebombing Tokyo apparently wasn't, so why would this be?

As a final note, I will say that I oversimplified about radiation damage, nonconformist is correct that radiation was known to be very harmful, however, we still don't really have as much of an understanding of it as we'd like, and that's after years of studying survivors from fission weapons.

No as I've come to understand, history is only interesting to you Americans if it confirms your beliefs, I asked for a link to Elrohir's assertion got nothing and won't because it's false, I ask you to deny the textual documents from the CIA, from the war ministry in England, and from the Japanese I get nothing, I ask you to get off your arse and actually debunk the original premise and you do nothing.

So let's recap: at the moment, I'm looking as if my premise is 100% correct, nothing to debunk any of the factual evidence just words and semantics, what if, my grandiose fat ass? What if we would of actually just conceded to what we gave them anyway? Debunk the source or not, at the moment, I'm untouchable. Bring it on....

No offence but you guys are looking like a bunch of amateurs just spouting x as if it must be true, what I want is actual proof that all these documents are false, that intelligence agency reports and assumptions are false. I can see I'm not going to get it, but it doesn't matter, because that's it really you know your fault, you wont admit and you never will as per frigin' usual.

 

[Irish Caesar]

No as I've come to understand, history is only interesting to you Americans if it confirms your beliefs, I asked for a link to Elrohir's assertion got nothing and won't because it's false, I ask you to deny the textual documents from the CIA, from the war ministry in England, and from the Japanese I get nothing, I ask you to get off your arse and actually debunk the original premise and you do nothing.

You know as well as I that I can't "debunk" this, I haven't studied history and can't speak for the facts or lack thereof in the book. Does it make you feel good that you have the same argument as a creationist: "you weren't there so you can't debunk it so I win"?

Obviously there would have been disagreement within the government as to whether to drop the thing. I think that the US would have preferred to give Hirohito the boot (or the rope), but after their nuclear arsenal was exhausted and the Japanese government still didn't agree to an unconditional surrender, what was the US to do? Invade? Build a few more nuclear weapons and drop them? There was no other choice for the US that wouldn't have been a lot more bloody.

So let's recap: at the moment, I'm looking as if my premise is 100% correct, nothing to debunk any of the factual evidence just words and semantics, what if, my grandiose fat ass? What if we would of actually just conceded to what we gave them anyway? Debunk the source or not, at the moment, I'm untouchable. Bring it on....

No offence but you guys are looking like a bunch of amateurs just spouting x as if it must be true, what I want is actual proof that all these documents are false, that intelligence agency reports and assumptions are false. I can see I'm not going to get it, but it doesn't matter, because that's it really you know your fault, you wont admit and you never will as per frigin' usual.

I like how you call us all out for giving opinions (isn't that what you want?) but then say "no offense"!

 

[thenooblet22]

I just wish they would have bombed other targets besides cities. You would make your point while keeping deaths at a minimum. An army base? Or for a more ironic taste, a habour?

 

[.Shane.]

I love how people have this need to distill these things into cut n' dry, black and white questions.

The truth is not so clear.

To answer the question... "necessary"? Well, you could argue if anything was "necessary"... "Were the Normandy landings necessary"? etc....

So, I wouldn't use the word "necessary". I do believe they (the bombings) were the best course of action based on the needs of the moment.

 

[Nylan]

Before the decision to drop the bomb happened, the number of American, British, and Japanese lives that would most likely die in the taking of the homeland were calculated

and they were far worse than the bomb's casualties

Not to mention Japan wouldn't have been much more than rubble. I've been to Okinawa. I've seen what kind of resistance was put up by the Japanese. Every three feet you can still find shells in the dirt and holes in walls, bombed out buildings (mostly castles), the works

There would not have been any Japan left

I see it as the lesser of two evils.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

On the Insitute for Historical Review;

I read the article from this site, Sidhe, and it is not worth taking seriously.

The 'Institute for Historical Review' has a video link on it's front page in which Mark Weber, Director of the Institute, claims that Holocaust rememberance is a Zionist conspiricy designed to garner support for Israel and further Jewish interests. He hails David Irving as 'couragous' in the video.

The Institute is also known for Holocaust denial

I think the credibility of this source is a bit questionable.

The other article put forward (from lewrockwell.com) is better, and much more credible. The Japanese did send out peace feelers to the USSR in early July 1945, however these were half-hearted efforts, and in any case Stalin was keen to prolong the Pacific conflict in order to grab Manchuria from the Japanese, and perhaps get his foot onto Japan itself. So appealing to Stalin as a mediator to peace was a bad move anyway.

The Japanese also did not look to offer unconditional peace, as they wanted to preserve the Imperial system of 'Tenno', which had committed horrific crimes during the war, as much intact as possible. In fact, as far as possible, they wanted to keep the Allies out of post-war Japan; they wanted no occupation of Japan, to try their own war-criminals, and to oversee their own disarmament with as little involvement from the Allies as possible. Stalin reported the peace-feeling to Truman and Chruchill later in July, probably with a little spin of his own, and Truman stuck to his insistance on unconditional surrender. Afew days later Truman announced the Potsdam Declaration re-iterating the demand for unconditional surrender; the Japanese refused.

The Japanese made no offers of surrender directly to the Western Allies, AFAIK, until after the two nuclear bombs had been dropped on their home-islands on 6 and 9 August.

Even then, the descision was taken just barely - the highest council of the Imperial government was deadlocked 3-3 over the issue of weather to offer a surrender. Even then *none* of them wished to surrender on America's terms, which were quite generous. Especially when compared with the horrors that the Japanese themselves inflicted on for example the Chinese, or indeed, I think, the peace terms the Japanese would offer America if, somehow, the Japanese had won the war. Even at this point, half of the council still wanted Japan to refuse to accept Allied occupation, have no Allied involvement in war-crime trials, and insist on seeing to their own disarmament. In effect, more an offer of 'lets stop fighting' than surrender. However the Emporer's intervention saw to it that they offered surrender as long as the Emporer's power remained intact, and only when this offer was refused, did they finally offer total unconditional surrender.

It is easy to understand, from the Western Allies perspective, why they would want to distmantle as much of the Imprerial Japanese regime as they could, lest it rise again. Looking at it this way, it is easier to understand Truman's insistance on total surrender, including the surrender of the Emporer, who had overseen some terrible crimes during the war, especially in China.

Personally, I agree with Irish Caesar that it is disgusting that Hirohito remained Emporer, even with reduced powers.

 

[.Shane.]

The Alperovitz book is a credible one in terms of the debate. It is unfortunate that some people choose to ignore that.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

However, good lord, the ihr is a Holocaust denial group. You may want to more closely vet things you link to as part of your supporting arguments....

Source

 

[Nylan]

Indeed

wait...you're saying not everything on the internet is credible!? *gasp* I think I'm going to go rethink my life now...

 

[Irish Caesar]

The Alperovitz book is a credible one in terms of the debate. It is unfortunate that some people choose to ignore that.

Is that the one from the Lew Rockwell site? I don't really know much about it, then, but I've used that site before to "prove" revisionist Confederate history stuff. I take them with a shaker of salt.

 

[.Shane.]

Is that the one from the Lew Rockwell site? I don't really know much about it, then, but I've used that site before to "prove" revisionist Confederate history stuff. I take them with a shaker of salt.

The Lew Rockwell link is an essay written by a 2nd person, who, in his essay, references Alperovitz. Kinda like a blind squirrel finding a nut. Or, in this case a nut finding a nut.

But, the Alperovitz book is considered a pretty good work and takes the side in this debate that dropping the bomb was not necessary at all and that Truman made his decision contrary to most of all his best advisors. I haven't personally read it, but I know it's well regarded, whether or not you agree w/ its premise (which I don't).

Sidhe's argument would've been better from the get-go if he had went straight to Alperovitz and ignore the Rockwell link and ditched the IHR altogether.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Elrohir, Sidhe;

Please maintain the level of debate at "Civil" or above.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MjM]

If the bomb had not been dropped, many more Japanese civilians, millitary men, and American millitary, as well as any other nation which participated in the fight to take Japan. Considering it took 33 days to take the island of Iwo Jima which is thousands of times smaller than the Japanese islands, the cost of human life would've been enourmous.

 

[Masquerouge]

Considering it took 33 days to take the island of Iwo Jima which is thousands of times smaller than the Japanese islands, the cost of human life would've been enourmous.

But that's not for sure. Other parts that Japan defended fell easily.

 

[MjM]

But that's not for sure. Other parts that Japan defended fell easily.

Which places?
And the defenders that defended Iwo Jima were told to fight to the last man, and that was for some dirt in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
How do you think they would fight for their homeland? Much more fierce.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Wrong; various accidents during the manufacturing and experimental stages of the bomb ensured that the Allies know plenty about the effects of radiation on the human body.

This goes against everything I have ever heard. Also, how come some American Citizens got cancer from radiation received from observing atomic bomb tests after WWII. They weren't warned by the government any more than the Japanese were. I'm sorry I don't have a link, but I remember seeing it on 60 Minutes.

 

[Gilder]

I just wish they would have bombed other targets besides cities. You would make your point while keeping deaths at a minimum. An army base? Or for a more ironic taste, a habour?

Hirsohima was important both militarily and industrially. Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports during the war.

 

[Irish Caesar]

The Lew Rockwell link is an essay written by a 2nd person, who, in his essay, references Alperovitz. Kinda like a blind squirrel finding a nut. Or, in this case a nut finding a nut.

But, the Alperovitz book is considered a pretty good work and takes the side in this debate that dropping the bomb was not necessary at all and that Truman made his decision contrary to most of all his best advisors. I haven't personally read it, but I know it's well regarded, whether or not you agree w/ its premise (which I don't).

Sidhe's argument would've been better from the get-go if he had went straight to Alperovitz and ignore the Rockwell link and ditched the IHR altogether.

Ah, fair enough. I still fail to be impressed by advanced degrees discussing history and policy, as it is impossible to test any hypothesis made (and because I've seen so many bad ones speak), but this does cast the guy in a much better light.

But that and a buck will get him a Coke.