Here's another part of the history that have been missed thus far by the participants that speaks to the justification for the atom bombing of Japan during WWII. Although Victor Davis Hanson wrote this article to offer lessons of Okinawa to gaffes of Iraq, it provides a pretty good history to support the bombings.
*******
"Blood bath in Okinawa offers lesson: US will recover from gaffes in Iraq The US military invaded Okinawa on April 1, 1945, the last bastian of the Japanese maritime empire that stood in the way of an assault on the mainland.
Operation iceberg was perhaps the largest combined land-sea operation since Xerxes swept into Greece, involving more troops than at Normandy Beach - 1,600 ships, 183,000 infantry and 12,000 aircraft. More than 110,000 skilled Japanese soldiers, commanded by the brilliant Gen. Mitsuru Ushijima and buttressed by an additional 100,000 coerced Okinawan irregulars, were ready for them.
Despite the most terrible naval barrage in history, and an ominous unopposed initial landing, almost everything imaginable then went wrong. The ravaged island was not to be declared secure until July 2 - a little more than a month before the final Japanese surrender.
In just these few weeks before the end of the war; 12,520 Americans were killed - well more than twice as many as were lost at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. In all, more than 33,000 more Americans were wounded and missing. Perhaps an additional 200,000 Japanese soldiers, Okinawan auxiliaries and civilians died in the inferno.
*** skipped two paragraphs.
Suicide bombers were vastly underestimated. No one ever imagined that there were 10,000 Japanese bombers and fighters committed to the campaign - and perhaps as many as 4,000 kamikazes slated for suicide attacks.
The result was the greatest losses in the history of the Navy - 36 ships sunk, 368 hit, 5,000 sailors killed. Anger arose almost immediately: Why no accurate intelligence: why no armored aircraft carrier decks; why no suitable fighter screens; why the need to post off the island as sitting ducks - why the need to invade at all? Why, why, why?"
Sound familiar?
It sounds all too familiar, c. i.
Those who argue against the legitimacy of the August 6th and 9th bombings argue against logic, reason, and history. The tenacity and fanaticism of the Japanese defense of Tarawa in November 1943 stunned The US press, brought about calls for an end to the war, and caused The US Military to reassess and revise its overall Pacific Warplan. A few months later, much the same was true of the Saipan segment of the Marianas campaign. Move on a few more months, and in April 1945, Okinawa was "deja vu all over again". In succession, each battle was the fiercest, hardest, costliest fought to date.
Three times in less than 18 months, the Japanese had conclusively evidenced unsuspected defensive resources, each time inflicting on US forces far greater damage than had been even most pessimistically forecast. A spectacular disregard of lessons learned would be required to assume invasion of the actual Home Islands might have been any less escalatingly, horrifically costly than had been the steppin'-stones to that point. If nothin' else, there was absolutely no reason to doubt the Japanese would mount anything other than than the most ferocious, bloody, last-man-standin', no-quarter-asked-or-given, go-down-in-flames defense ever witnessed in all of history, and every reason to conclude, and to procede in the inescapable assumption, that most certainly they could and most certainly they would do precisely that.
Only one ignorant of the facts, or an outright fool, might think otherwise. Given the circumstances, the availability of nuclear weapons mandated their use. On humanitarian grounds.
"That was certainly not the view presented by the intelligence available to the White House at the time. "
Were you actually in the White House in July 1945 Oralloy?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Were you actually in the White House in July 1945 Oralloy?
No, but I've read history books on the issue. Perhaps not as many history books as I'd like, but enough to have a good understanding of what happened.
Timber you perplex me.
A page or so back you said
"Mebbe our respective positions are not so far apart after all, Steve."
I have not said the bombings were a crime, only that they were unnecessary. Others have said the same e.g.
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment"
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey.
"But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
Gen Henry H (Hap) Arnold, quoted by Eaker.
"dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
But now you say (in regards to Japanese defense of the home islands and therefore the necessity of using the bomb) :
"Only one ignorant of the facts, or an outright fool, might think otherwise."
Presumably that includes not only me but the three named above.
As for your point that
"the availability of nuclear weapons mandated their use. On humanitarian grounds."
This is Richard M Nixon on Gen. Douglas MacArthur
"MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him."
...which doesnt exactly square with your view that dropping the atomic bomb was a humanitarian act.
p.s to Oralloy
Please make it clear in your posts when you are quoting me directly and when I am quoting someone else. Tks.
Oral
I wasn't intending to be flippant when I asked if you were in the White House. I guessed you probably weren't but then you seem to speak with such authority when you flatly deny my points...
You probably have read more on this subject than I have. But on the other hand I come to it with a completely open mind. I am genuinely open to pursuasion. As I said several pages back, it is my contention that the A bombings were unnecessary. But I put this forward as a point of discussion. I have some research and quotes that would support it, and you have put counter points.
If people come up with evidence to show that its a silly proposition, I'll drop it. Its no skin off my nose. But then I want more than just opinion.
as someone said 'opinions are interesting but facts are sacred'
I would say the statements of those you cite all were from hindsight and all had more than a small political component, one colored by post-war popular revulsion - thoroughly understandable - to the concept of Nuclear War. Again, considering the escalating cost and difficulty of the island-hoppin' Pacific War, there was no reasonable alternative to the response Truman gave to the choice The Japanese Government made. No one involved at the time was dealing with the circumstances of the time with the benefit of hindsight. Unless, of course, one takes into account the hindsight illuminated by a succession of unexpectedly terrible, costly island invasions, each more arduous than its predecessor, leading to the final battle.
Japan was blockaded. There was no need for an invasion. You could have starved them out.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>p.s to Oralloy
>Please make it clear in your posts when you are quoting me directly and when I am quoting someone else. Tks.
I am not sure how it wasn't clear before. But is this better?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>As I said several pages back, it is my contention that the A bombings were unnecessary. But I put this forward as a point of discussion. I have some research and quotes that would support it, and you have put counter points.
>If people come up with evidence to show that its a silly proposition, I'll drop it. Its no skin off my nose.
In fact, the bombings were not necessary. I fully back this claim of yours.
But it is a view derived with the advantage of hindsight. The lack of necessity was not apparent to us at the time the bombs were dropped.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>Japan was blockaded. There was no need for an invasion. You could have starved them out.
Estimates I've seen say that 10 million Japanese civilians would have starved to death if this was tried.
But it was going to be tried next, if they still hadn't accepted our terms after the next bomb.
Timber wrote
"there was no reasonable alternative to the response Truman gave to the choice The Japanese Government made."
reasonable alternatives in my view
demonstrate the thing on an uninhabited area
give guarantees on the future treatment of the emporer in July 45. i.e. offer something you think they might accept instead of something ("unconditional surrender") which you know they won't.
give an ultimatum that unless Japan surrendered immediately "new and more powerful weapons of war would be used". Give them a few hours to figure out what this meant. Was any warning of any kind issued to the Japanese? I think not or we would have heard about it.
Announce allied policy of total blockade of Japan and if necessary the starvation of the entire population.
In reality Truman never gave the Japanese any choice. For them "unconditional surrender" was the same as national suicide. An as I've suggested, there were several alternatives to using the Atomic Bomb, not using it being another.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>reasonable alternatives in my view
>demonstrate the thing on an uninhabited area
There were fears that they would see a demonstration as a sign of weakness, and that it would make them more resistant to accepting our terms.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>give guarantees on the future treatment of the emporer in July 45. i.e. offer something you think they might accept instead of something ("unconditional surrender") which you know they won't.
The terms we gave in Potsdam were plenty generous.
And we managed to make them accept our terms.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>give an ultimatum that unless Japan surrendered immediately "new and more powerful weapons of war would be used". Give them a few hours to figure out what this meant. Was any warning of any kind issued to the Japanese? I think not or we would have heard about it.
There was warning of more imminent bombing that would destroy cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There was no warning about the special nature of the bombing.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>Announce allied policy of total blockade of Japan and if necessary the starvation of the entire population.
While it was never "announced", I don't think the blockade was a secret.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>In reality Truman never gave the Japanese any choice. For them "unconditional surrender" was the same as national suicide.
We managed to make them accept it though.
And this was after the US demolished (literally) Tokyo to the ground. The wood and paper houses burned down quickly on their own no matter where the bombs were dropped.
Steve, whatchya gotta bear in mind is that there is no grander a repository of "Better Choices" than hindsight. However, when you're right in there here-and-now with what's goin' on at the moment, hindsight relevant to the current event is not an available resource.
It is POSSIBLE Japan might have capitulated without an Allied invasion of the Home Islands even had the bombs not been dropped. While some folks have a different view, it is my conviction, drawn from my own not inconsiderable appraisal of the available resource material, that such a serendipitous happenstance was not even remotely probable.
BTW - re your suggestion of a blockade - a blockade-in-effect is what precipitaed Japan's attack on The US, and from late '43 on, US and Allied naval operations, at first primarily submarine, but into '44 and beyond increasingly bolstered by air and surface assets, subjected Japan to an actual blockade-in-fact, a blockade which, by early '45, essentially had isolated Japan from the rest of the world. The Japanese people suffered increasing deprivation, but as is common under such circumstances, the effective impact on the military was much, much less - such resources as were available were directed chiefly to the military. Thats pretty much been the way of blockades since the days of besiegin' walled cities.
A small correction to timber's post. Not all of Japan's military in Asia enjoyed resources - food or munitions, beause of the blockade. It is fact that the Japanese citizens suffered the most.
Well of course Timber, things can become a little easier to see once you are away from the coal face. But dont forget we are trying to get in the heads of people like Truman. World leaders who are trying to think strategically and not just for tomorrow but for decades to come.
Seems to me the argument can be neatly summarised as follows
1. The atomic bombings forced Japan to accept what previously had been unacceptable i.e. "unconditional surrender". But Hirohito was not tried as a war criminal, as he should have been imo.
alternatively
2. Fears that Hirohito would be hung prevented Japan accepting "unconditional surrender". By holding out for this, the allies bought enough time to test the atomic bombs on live targets. As soon as the allies hinted that the Emperor would not be touched, Japan surrendered "unconditionally".
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>Seems to me the argument can be neatly summarised as follows
>1. The atomic bombings forced Japan to accept what previously had been unacceptable i.e. "unconditional surrender". But Hirohito was not tried as a war criminal, as he should have been imo.
What happened is a variant of this. But it was Okinawa that forced Japan to accept the unacceptable. While we were stunned at the level of resistance, Japan was stunned that we overcame that resistance and kept on coming. It was then that they realized that they needed to surrender.
But Japan wanted to see if they could surrender on better terms first. So they waited around to see if they could get the Soviets to help them with terms. When the Soviets entered the war against them, Japan realized that they would get no help from those quarters, and they gave up and accepted our terms.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>alternatively
>2. Fears that Hirohito would be hung prevented Japan accepting "unconditional surrender". By holding out for this, the allies bought enough time to test the atomic bombs on live targets. As soon as the allies hinted that the Emperor would not be touched, Japan surrendered "unconditionally".
We never hinted that the Emperor would not be touched.
But we did explicitly state that MacArthur would have the power to depose the Emperor at his pleasure.
oralloy wrote:What happened is a variant of this. But it was Okinawa that forced Japan to accept the unacceptable. While we were stunned at the level of resistance, Japan was stunned that we overcame that resistance and kept on coming. It was then that they realized that they needed to surrender.
Maybe I shouldn't post when I'm about to fall asleep.
That was when the
civilian part of the government realized they needed to surrender.
Of course, the military faction did not come around to this view until August 2nd (and they brought a host of unacceptable demands with them when they did).
We might be getting somewhere here
Oralloy said
"We never hinted that the Emperor would not be touched."
If true then case 2 begins to crumble
Meanwhile I asked if any warning of the impending atomic bombing was issued. Did the Americans ever give a clue as to the nature of new weapons that might be deployed? I think you said no Oralloy, but more evidence would be interesting.
Steve, the Japanese were warned, in precisely the words, of "assured and total destruction" should they not accept surrender demands. They went "all chips in" and called what they apparently thought was a bluff. It wasn't a bluff. They lost the hand - and that was the end of the game.
