19
   

Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

 
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 01:50 am
Re: Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasak
Jaffrey wrote:
Japan deserved to taste even bigger and even more savage atomic bomb.
Look at the current situation in Japan.
Look at the Yaskuni stuff in Japan.
Really foolish, absurd, and ridiculous.
Japan deserved to be nuked even more.


Can I ask - do you say this because of Japan's role against the US in WWII or because of the Rape of Nanking in WWII?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 07:06 am
Babs, you're welcome....

If not Mr J. (Its always male isnt it?)

Oralloy. Remind me which document? I dont believe for one moment that the decision to use the atomic bomb was made solely in the context of Japan. The wider political implications of nuclear weapons were apparant from the very start, from when Leo Szilard first understood on Southampton Row in London 1933.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 06:58 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>Oralloy. Remind me which document?


http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/surrender-exch.htm

"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the terms of the Potsdam proclamation but containing the statement, 'with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:

"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.

"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms, and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms. "Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese Government shall transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of safety, as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard Allied transports.

"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

"The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are achieved."




Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>I dont believe for one moment that the decision to use the atomic bomb was made solely in the context of Japan. The wider political implications of nuclear weapons were apparant from the very start, from when Leo Szilard first understood on Southampton Row in London 1933.


The wider implications were apparent, and the government under FDR was planning for them. But this planning was completely separate from the planning for how to use the bomb during the war.

Planning for wartime use was focused solely on how to make the enemy surrender on acceptable terms.

When Truman took over after FDR's death, he focused almost completely on avoiding a costly invasion of Japan. He was still encouraging the Soviets to join the Pacific war up to the point when they actually did join the war.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 07:33 am
oralloy wrote:

The wider implications were apparent, and the government under FDR was planning for them. But this planning was completely separate from the planning for how to use the bomb during the war.

Planning for wartime use was focused solely on how to make the enemy surrender on acceptable terms.



After all the discussion on this, I still find your position confusing. You admit that the bomb had much wider political implications beyond Japan, but then say the decision to use the weapon on Japan was taken without regards to the wider implications outside of Japan. Does this really hold water?

Secondly you refer again to forcing Japan to surrender on acceptable terms. There were no terms. Surrender was to be without terms. It was unconditional surrender.

Although we disagree about why the bomb was used, I have never said that its use was a war crime. But if I understand you correctly, you say the bomb was used to force Japan to surrender, but using it was in fact a war crime. Is this your position?
0 Replies
 
babsatamelia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 02:06 pm
From International Law on the Bombing of Civilians

"Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial
Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty,
September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the
tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply."



The later bombing of the predominately civilian population of the
major cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan by the USA was
NOT what was intended per International Law as it was meant to
be applied on this date. Here, the United States clearly denounces
such military action as a violation of International Law and we were
appealing to other countries NOT TO DO exactly what the USA did
in August 1945.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:10 pm
Hi, babs - nice to see you again.

However, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki qualified as "Unfortified Cities" - both were home to significant military installations, critical war production facillities, and transport hubs critical to the war effort, apart from hosting anti-aircraft installations and air defense fighter squadrons. An "Open", or "Unfortified", city must precisely be just that; without military significance, capability, or assets, offensive or defensive, logistic, tactical, or strategic.

By the rules of war as accepted at the time, both cities clearly and explicitly were strategic, war-effort-critical assets of the Japanes Empire, legitimate targets for aerial attack. Given the technologic capabilities of the time, it was not feasible to surgically take out individual buildings, complexes, or transport nodes; to effectively reduce a strategic target from the air required saturatrion bombinng of the target's environs.

Now, its ridiculous to argue that war - any war - is other than heinous; by its nature, its the very dirtiest of dirty business. That said, once committed to war, the full prosecution of that war - within the bounds of the contemporarily accepted rules of war, of course - not only is the right but the obligation of such states as may be warring, whether offensively or defensively.

One new-technology bomb from one plane or tens of thousands of old-technology bombs from a thousand planes, whichever, functionally, there is no difference; the object and effect is the reduction of a target or targets through massive destruction visited upon the target area. To contend otherwise is disingenuous and amounts to game-playing. War is no game.

Over the past 60 years, technologic advances have shrunk the circle-of-probable-error exponentially. No longer is it necessary to accept collateral damage of the order common to WWII in order to deprive an enemy of critical assets and/or resources. Collateral damage associated with assured target destruction of course yet remains a nasty byproduct of warfare, but today it affects an area of square yards, not square miles.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2005 09:14 am
"The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty,
September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing...etc.
...I request an immediate reply."

and what replies did he get?
0 Replies
 
lmur
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 02:36 pm
Just like to say that it's been fascinating reading this topic over the last number of days. Congrats to all involved! Being ill has never been more interesting...
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 03:48 pm
This just in. (Forwarded to me by a friend, a retired US Navy officer.)

Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision.
by Richard B. Frank
08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44




The sixtieth anniversary of Hiroshima seems to be shaping up as a subdued affair--though not for any lack of significance. A survey of news editors in 1999 ranked the dropping of the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945, first among the top one hundred stories of the twentieth century. And any thoughtful list of controversies in American history would place it near the top again. It was not always so. In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy."

But in the 1960s, what were previously modest and scattered challenges of the decision to use the bombs began to crystallize into a rival canon. The challengers were branded "revisionists," but this is inapt. Any historian who gains possession of significant new evidence has a duty to revise his appreciation of the relevant events. These challengers are better termed critics.

The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics divide over what prompted the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender, with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire to intimidate the Kremlin. Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view.

These rival narratives clashed in a major battle over the exhibition of the Enola Gay, the airplane from which the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, at the Smithsonian Institution in 1995. That confrontation froze many people's understanding of the competing views. Since then, however, a sheaf of new archival discoveries and publications has expanded our understanding of the events of August 1945. This new evidence requires serious revision of the terms of the debate. What is perhaps the most interesting feature of the new findings is that they make a case President Harry S. Truman deliberately chose not to make publicly in defense of his decision to use the bomb.

When scholars began to examine the archival records in the 1960s, some intuited quite correctly that the accounts of their decision-making that Truman and members of his administration had offered in 1945 were at least incomplete. And if Truman had refused to disclose fully his thinking, these scholars reasoned, it must be because the real basis for his choices would undermine or even delegitimize his decisions. It scarcely seemed plausible to such critics--or to almost anyone else--that there could be any legitimate reason that the U.S. government would have concealed at the time, and would continue to conceal, powerful evidence that supported and explained the president's decisions.

But beginning in the 1970s, we have acquired an array of new evidence from Japan and the United States. By far the most important single body of this new evidence consists of secret radio intelligence material, and what it highlights is the painful dilemma faced by Truman and his administration. In explaining their decisions to the public, they deliberately forfeited their best evidence. They did so because under the stringent security restrictions guarding radio intercepts, recipients of this intelligence up to and including the president were barred from retaining copies of briefing documents, from making any public reference to them whatsoever at the time or in their memoirs, and from retaining any record of what they had seen or what they had concluded from it. With a handful of exceptions, they obeyed these rules, both during the war and thereafter.

Collectively, the missing information is known as The Ultra Secret of World War II (after the title of a breakthrough book by Frederick William Winterbotham published in 1974). Ultra was the name given to what became a vast and enormously efficient Allied radio intelligence organization, which secretly unveiled masses of information for senior policymakers. Careful listening posts snatched copies of millions of cryptograms from the air. Code breakers then extracted the true text. The extent of the effort is staggering. By the summer of 1945, Allied radio intelligence was breaking into a million messages a month from the Japanese Imperial Army alone, and many thousands from the Imperial Navy and Japanese diplomats.

All of this effort and expertise would be squandered if the raw intercepts were not properly translated and analyzed and their disclosures distributed to those who needed to know. This is where Pearl Harbor played a role. In the aftermath of that disastrous surprise attack, Secretary of War Henry Stimson recognized that the fruits of radio intelligence were not being properly exploited. He set Alfred McCormack, a top-drawer lawyer with experience in handling complex cases, to the task of formulating a way to manage the distribution of information from Ultra. The system McCormack devised called for funneling all radio intelligence to a handful of extremely bright individuals who would evaluate the flood of messages, correlate them with all other sources, and then write daily summaries for policymakers.

By mid-1942, McCormack's scheme had evolved into a daily ritual that continued to the end of the war--and is in essence the system still in effect today. Every day, analysts prepared three mimeographed newsletters. Official couriers toting locked pouches delivered one copy of each summary to a tiny list of authorized recipients around the Washington area. (They also retrieved the previous day's distribution, which was then destroyed except for a file copy.) Two copies of each summary went to the White House, for the president and his chief of staff. Other copies went to a very select group of officers and civilian officials in the War and Navy Departments, the British Staff Mission, and the State Department. What is almost as interesting is the list of those not entitled to these top-level summaries: the vice president, any cabinet official outside the select few in the War, Navy, and State Departments, anyone in the Office of Strategic Services or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or anyone in the Manhattan Project building the atomic bomb, from Major General Leslie Groves on down.

The three daily summaries were called the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary, the "Magic" Far East Summary, and the European Summary. ("Magic" was a code word coined by the U.S. Army's chief signal officer, who called his code breakers "magicians" and their product "Magic." The term "Ultra" came from the British and has generally prevailed as the preferred term among historians, but in 1945 "Magic" remained the American designation for radio intelligence, particularly that concerning the Japanese.) The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary covered intercepts from foreign diplomats all over the world. The "Magic" Far East Summary presented information on Japan's military, naval, and air situation. The European Summary paralleled the Far East summary in coverage and need not detain us. Each summary read like a newsmagazine. There were headlines and brief articles usually containing extended quotations from intercepts and commentary. The commentary was critical: Since no recipient retained any back issues, it was up to the editors to explain how each day's developments fitted into the broader picture.

When a complete set of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary for the war years was first made public in 1978, the text contained a large number of redacted (literally whited out) passages. The critics reasonably asked whether the blanks concealed devastating revelations. Release of a nonredacted complete set in 1995 disclosed that the redacted areas had indeed contained a devastating revelation--but not about the use of the atomic bombs. Instead, the redacted areas concealed the embarrassing fact that Allied radio intelligence was reading the codes not just of the Axis powers, but also of some 30 other governments, including allies like France.

The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government.

An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan's only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda). In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a "We surrender" note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six--in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled.

The conduit for this initiative was Japan's ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato. He communicated with Foreign Minister Togo--and, thanks to code breaking, with American policymakers. Ambassador Sato emerges in the intercepts as a devastating cross-examiner ruthlessly unmasking for history the feebleness of the whole enterprise. Sato immediately told Togo that the Soviets would never bestir themselves on behalf of Japan. The foreign minister could only insist that Sato follow his instructions. Sato demanded to know whether the government and the military supported the overture and what its legal basis was--after all, the official Japanese position, adopted in an Imperial Conference in June 1945 with the emperor's sanction, was a fight to the finish. The ambassador also demanded that Japan state concrete terms to end the war, otherwise the effort could not be taken seriously. Togo responded evasively that the "directing powers" and the government had authorized the effort--he did not and could not claim that the military in general supported it or that the fight-to-the-end policy had been replaced. Indeed, Togo added: "Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender."

This last comment triggered a fateful exchange. Critics have pointed out correctly that both Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew (the former U.S. ambassador to Japan and the leading expert on that nation within the government) and Secretary of War Henry Stimson advised Truman that a guarantee that the Imperial Institution would not be eliminated could prove essential to obtaining Japan's surrender. The critics further have argued that if only the United States had made such a guarantee, Japan would have surrendered. But when Foreign Minister Togo informed Ambassador Sato that Japan was not looking for anything like unconditional surrender, Sato promptly wired back a cable that the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary made clear to American policymakers "advocate[s] unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House is preserved." Togo's reply, quoted in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945, was adamant: American policymakers could read for themselves Togo's rejection of Sato's proposal--with not even a hint that a guarantee of the Imperial House would be a step in the right direction. Any rational person following this exchange would conclude that modifying the demand for unconditional surrender to include a promise to preserve the Imperial House would not secure Japan's surrender.

Togo's initial messages--indicating that the emperor himself endorsed the effort to secure Soviet mediation and was prepared to send his own special envoy--elicited immediate attention from the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary, as well as Under Secretary of State Grew. Because of Grew's documented advice to Truman on the importance of the Imperial Institution, critics feature him in the role of the sage counsel. What the intercept evidence discloses is that Grew reviewed the Japanese effort and concurred with the U.S. Army's chief of intelligence, Major General Clayton Bissell, that the effort most likely represented a ploy to play on American war weariness. They deemed the possibility that it manifested a serious effort by the emperor to end the war "remote." Lest there be any doubt about Grew's mindset, as late as August 7, the day after Hiroshima, Grew drafted a memorandum with an oblique reference to radio intelligence again affirming his view that Tokyo still was not close to peace.

Starting with the publication of excerpts from the diaries of James Forrestal in 1951, the contents of a few of the diplomatic intercepts were revealed, and for decades the critics focused on these. But the release of the complete (unredacted) "Magic" Far East Summary, supplementing the Diplomatic Summary, in the 1990s revealed that the diplomatic messages amounted to a mere trickle by comparison with the torrent of military intercepts. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender. Ultra was even more alarming in what it revealed about Japanese knowledge of American military plans. Intercepts demonstrated that the Japanese had correctly anticipated precisely where U.S. forces intended to land on Southern Kyushu in November 1945 (Operation Olympic). American planning for the Kyushu assault reflected adherence to the military rule of thumb that the attacker should outnumber the defender at least three to one to assure success at a reasonable cost. American estimates projected that on the date of the landings, the Japanese would have only three of their six field divisions on all of Kyushu in the southern target area where nine American divisions would push ashore. The estimates allowed that the Japanese would possess just 2,500 to 3,000 planes total throughout Japan to face Olympic. American aerial strength would be over four times greater.

From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000. One intelligence officer commented that the Japanese defenses threatened "to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory."

Concurrent with the publication of the radio intelligence material, additional papers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been released in the last decade. From these, it is clear that there was no true consensus among the Joint Chiefs of Staff about an invasion of Japan. The Army, led by General George C. Marshall, believed that the critical factor in achieving American war aims was time. Thus, Marshall and the Army advocated an invasion of the Home Islands as the fastest way to end the war. But the long-held Navy view was that the critical factor in achieving American war aims was casualties. The Navy was convinced that an invasion would be far too costly to sustain the support of the American people, and hence believed that blockade and bombardment were the sound course.

The picture becomes even more complex than previously understood because it emerged that the Navy chose to postpone a final showdown over these two strategies. The commander in chief of the U.S. fleet, Admiral Ernest King, informed his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 that he did not agree that Japan should be invaded. He concurred only that the Joint Chiefs must issue an invasion order immediately to create that option for the fall. But King predicted that the Joint Chiefs would revisit the issue of whether an invasion was wise in August or September. Meanwhile, two months of horrendous fighting ashore on Okinawa under skies filled with kamikazes convinced the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Chester Nimitz, that he should withdraw his prior support for at least the invasion of Kyushu. Nimitz informed King of this change in his views in strict confidence.

In August, the Ultra revelations propelled the Army and Navy towards a showdown over the invasion. On August 7 (the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender), General Marshall reacted to weeks of gathering gloom in the Ultra evidence by asking General Douglas MacArthur, who was to command what promised to be the greatest invasion in history, whether invading Kyushu in November as planned still looked sensible. MacArthur replied, amazingly, that he did not believe the radio intelligence! He vehemently urged the invasion should go forward as planned. (This, incidentally, demolishes later claims that MacArthur thought the Japanese were about to surrender at the time of Hiroshima.) On August 9 (the day the second bomb was dropped, on Nagasaki), King gathered the two messages in the exchange between Marshall and MacArthur and sent them to Nimitz. King told Nimitz to provide his views on the viability of invading Kyushu, with a copy to MacArthur. Clearly, nothing that had transpired since May would have altered Nimitz's view that Olympic was unwise. Ultra now made the invasion appear foolhardy to everyone but MacArthur. But King had not placed a deadline on Nimitz's response, and the Japanese surrender on August 15 allowed Nimitz to avoid starting what was certain to be one of the most tumultuous interservice battles of the whole war.

What this evidence illuminates is that one central tenet of the traditionalist view is wrong--but with a twist. Even with the full ration of caution that any historian should apply anytime he ventures comments on paths history did not take, in this instance it is now clear that the long-held belief that Operation Olympic loomed as a certainty is mistaken. Truman's reluctant endorsement of the Olympic invasion at a meeting in June 1945 was based in key part on the fact that the Joint Chiefs had presented it as their unanimous recommendation. (King went along with Marshall at the meeting, presumably because he deemed it premature to wage a showdown fight. He did comment to Truman that, of course, any invasion authorized then could be canceled later.) With the Navy's withdrawal of support, the terrible casualties in Okinawa, and the appalling radio-intelligence picture of the Japanese buildup on Kyushu, Olympic was not going forward as planned and authorized--period. But this evidence also shows that the demise of Olympic came not because it was deemed unnecessary, but because it had become unthinkable. It is hard to imagine anyone who could have been president at the time (a spectrum that includes FDR, Henry Wallace, William O. Douglas, Harry Truman, and Thomas Dewey) failing to authorize use of the atomic bombs in this circumstance. Japanese historians uncovered another key element of the story. After Hiroshima (August 6), Soviet entry into the war against Japan (August 8), and Nagasaki (August 9), the emperor intervened to break a deadlock within the government and decide that Japan must surrender in the early hours of August 10. The Japanese Foreign Ministry dispatched a message to the United States that day stating that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, "with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." This was not, as critics later asserted, merely a humble request that the emperor retain a modest figurehead role. As Japanese historians writing decades after the war emphasized, the demand that there be no compromise of the "prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler" as a precondition for the surrender was a demand that the United States grant the emperor veto power over occupation reforms and continue the rule of the old order in Japan. Fortunately, Japan specialists in the State Department immediately realized the actual purpose of this language and briefed Secretary of State James Byrnes, who insisted properly that this maneuver must be defeated. The maneuver further underscores the fact that right to the very end, the Japanese pursued twin goals: not only the preservation of the imperial system, but also preservation of the old order in Japan that had launched a war of aggression that killed 17 million.

This brings us to another aspect of history that now very belatedly has entered the controversy. Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued. Newman et al. challenge whether an assessment of Truman's decision can highlight only the deaths of noncombatant civilians in the aggressor nation while ignoring much larger death tolls among noncombatant civilians in the victim nations.

There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

The displacement of the so-called traditionalist view within important segments of American opinion took several decades to accomplish. It will take a similar span of time to displace the critical orthodoxy that arose in the 1960s and prevailed roughly through the 1980s, and replace it with a richer appreciation for the realities of 1945. But the clock is ticking.

Richard B. Frank, a historian of World War II, is the author of Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 05:42 pm
Good piece, MA, though dunno as I'd say that's exactly "This Just In" news; seems almost like I've heard most of it before :wink:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=773289&highlight=emperor#773289]Way back here[/url], timber wrote:
... Operation Olympic, planned for October-November, 1945, was to be the first of a 2-part seaborne invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, with a 14 Division assault, some 300,000 land-combat troops and approximately 4 to 5 times that number of Naval, Airforce, and non-combatant support personnel, on the Southernmost Home Island, Kyushu. The second phase, named Operation Coronet, was to commence on or about March 1, 1946, providing Olympic had gone at least marginally according to plan, something that was by no means a foregone conclusion. The the Coronet assault was to be a 25 Division assault on the Main Home Island, Honshu, the immediate objective being a drive up the Tokyo Plain, both to take the capital and to bifurcate the defender's troop concentration. All told, between the two operations, an initial allocation of some 1.8 Million combat troops and over 3 Million other military, were to be committed, or nearly one half of all US uniformed forces at the time, would be involved in the operations, along with civilian support, mostly Merchant Marine, numbering into the low hundreds of thousands. Total manpower commitment to the invasion was to be well upwards of 5 Million souls; the entirety of The US Marine Corps, the entire US Pacific Fleet (some 3000 ships), the entire 8th Army, the entire 8th Air Force (redeployed from Europe), the entire 20th Airforce, and the entire American Far Eastern Air Force and roughly one third of The Merchant Marine.

Heavy casualties were expected, given experience gained from the nearly three years of island hopping begun at Guadalcanal in November of 1942. Estimates for the Kyushu assault alone were 2 to 3 hundred thousand. General Douglas MacArthur, overall US Pacific Commander, officially anticipated over 1 Million Own Forces would be killed or wounded by the Autum of 1946. General Charles Willoughby, Mac Arthur's Intelligence Chief, considered that a conservative estimate.
Though effectively contained by a nearly impenetrable naval blockade, and daily pummeled from the air by endless streams of bombers, Japan adamantly refused surrender. A blockade isolates a Power, but it does not kill it. Strategic bombing lays waste to cities, devastates populations, crippling industry and transport, but leaves entire Armies relatively unscathed.

Truman approved the invasion plans on July 24, 1945, while at the Potsdam Conference. 2 days later, the UN issued the Potsdam Proclamation, a final call for Japan immediately to surrender, unconditionally, or face sure and total destruction. On the 29th of July, The Japanese Governmental News Agency, the official organ of the regime, formally broadcast to the world Japan's unswerving intention to refuse surrender and to ignore all provisos of the Potsdam Proclamation.
At about this time, late July of 1945, intelligence intercepts revealed Japan had closed all schools, non-essential industry, and commerce, mobilizing and arming much of its civilian population. Aerial reconnaissance clearly showed massive fortification and underground facility construction underway throughout Japan.

It was anticipated the initial action against Kyushu would commence on 27 October 1945, with the first moves of a 4-pronged attack to be the taking and occupation of of several smaller islands South and Southwest of Kyushu proper. The 40th Infantry Division and the 158th Regimental Combat Team were assigned this task, with Naval support from 3 Battleships, 12 Cruisers, and 4 Aircraft Carriers, along with myriad lesser warships. The islands were to provide land-based communications and radar, both to warn the fleet of enemy air or surface activity, and air traffic control for the air armada accompanying the invasion, as well as emergency aircraft landing facilities and a sheltered anchorage for damaged invasion vessels.

Bombardment, both by surface ship and by aircraft, would precede the beach landing by 72 hours, and continue throughout the operation, "rolling" in front of the planned overland advance. The main invasion of Kyushu was to commence at dawn November 1, with simultaneous amphibious assaults along the Eastern, Northern, and Western coasts of the island.

The 25th, 33rd, and 41st Infantry Divisions would have the Eastern prong, landing near the city of Myasaki, at 6 beach heads codenamed "Austin", "Buick", "Cadillac", "Chevrolet", "Chrysler" and "Cord". The assault objectives were to be the capture of the city and of a nearby large military airfield.

On the Southern Flank, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 43 Division, and the Americal Division would invade the Amake Bay area at beaches codenamed "DeSoto", "Dusenberg", "Essex", "Ford" and "Franklin". The objectives were the capture of the port cities of Shibshi and Kanoya, and another large Imperial Army Airfield.

To the West, the beaches were codenamed "Pontiac", "Reo", "Rolls Royce", "Saxon", "Star", "Studebaker", "Stutz", "Winton" and "Zephyr". V Amphibious Corps, consisting of 2nd, 3rd and 5th Marine Divisions was to take the port city of Kagoshima and to drive inland to the city of Sendai, site of a major Imperial Army Base.

On November 4th, following a feint attack on the island of Shikoku, 81st and 98th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division, unless already committed elsewhere as emergency reserve, would attack Kagoshima Bay, across beaches codenamed "Locomobile", "Lincoln", "LaSalle", "Hupmobile", "Moon", "Mercedes", "Maxwell", "Overland", "Oldsmobile", "Packard" and "Plymouth", with the city of Kaimondake, a Naval Airfield, and a Submarine base as objectives.

A 4-month timetable was established for Olympic, and each month would see the landing of an additional 3 Divisions. The assault on Kyushu, itself the largest single military endeavor in to that time in history, was to be but prelude. Assuming success for Olympic, Coronet, the Main Event and over twice the size of its predecessor, was scheduled to open March 1st, 1946.

East of Tokyo, the American 1st Army would land the 5th, 7th, 27th, 44th, 86th and 96th Infantry Divisions, along with 1st, 4th and 6th Marine Divisions. To the South, at Sagami Bay, 8th and 10th Armies, comprised of the 4th, 6th, 8th, 24th, 31st, 32nd, 37th, 38th and 87th Infantry Divisions, accompanied by the 13th and 20th Armoured Divisions would strike inland toward the city complex of Yokohama. Subsequent assaults were to be conducted at various points by an additional 8 Divisions, the 2nd, 28th, 35th, 91st, 95th, 97th and 104th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division. Follow-on forces, consisting of as many as an additional dozen Divisions redeployed from Europe and currently undergoing refitting, replacement, and retraining in the US already had their re-deployment orders.

This almost unimaginable force structure was calculated as necessary and sufficient roaccomplishe the task given the best estimates of the intelligence services at the time. Postwar examination of documents, discovery ofassetss, and interrogation of captured Senior Officers revealed the available intelligence had badly underestimated the actual defensive capacity of Japan.

Following the Okinawa campaign, during which Kamikaze attacks sunk 32 ships and damaged over 400 more, the assessment was that Japan had largely spent her airpower. The assumption was aided by the fact US bombers and fighters faced essentially no Japanese air interdiction over The Home Islands, and were able to roam and strike almost at will, day or night, hindered only by desultory anti-aircraft fire.

In fact, the Japanese Homeland Defense Plan, codenamed Ketsu-Go, had seen to the marshalling of over 12,700 serviceable aircraft, along with the construction of dozens ofsubterraneann hangar facilities, scores of hidden,camouflagedd airstrips, and the stockpiling of tens of thousands of gallons of fuel and hundreds of thousand tons ofmunitionss, from bombs and torpedoes to rockets, mortar rounds, and artillery projectiles, and a few thousand tons of military-grade explosives not encompassed with projectiles. Additionally, in "cottage shops" and under bridges, in basements and in mines and tunnels, military production was continuing at a feverish pace.

The Ketsu-Go plan was for four separate aerial campaigns against the invasion fleet. While 2000 fighters were to contest the skies over Kyushu, an initial 800 plane Kamikaze attack was to engage the fleet during its assembly about the islands, over Kyushu. A second force of over 300 planes was to target specifically the aircraft carriers and other ground-fire-capable ships, attacking in waves from all points of the compass. Over 800 more suicide planes were to target the transports and landing ships.
The Kyushu defense was allotted approximately 2000 additional planes, most of which which were to be used in suicide waves of from 50 to over 100, as the situation merited and circumstances permitted.

The Japanese calculated they could stymie the invasion and inflict crippling losses on both the capital ships and escorts and the support ships. Relying not just on air power, they had 40 operational submarines, each fully manned, fueled, and armed. Some 20 destroyers and three cruisers remained operational as well, and were to be used variously to counterattack the invasion fleet and, beached, as fire support platforms.
Additionally, there was a force of some 400 suicide submarines ... little more than manned torpedoes, but deadly nonetheless. The invasion fleet would come under devastating, unceasing assault from land, sea, and air, before the troops even got to the beaches.

Confident of inflicting staggering losses, though at horrendous cost to themselves, the Japanese anticipated the Americans would falter, back off, abandon the endeavor, and, shocked and demoralized, perhaps to offer at least face-saving, less-than-unconditional surrender terms.

Nothing if not meticulous in planning, the Japanese had a fallback plan, should the invasion succeed in lodging troops ashore, as they thought likely.
The most determined and fanatical defense of the war had been prepared. The Japanese High Command had correctly worked out not only when, but almost to the foot where the Americans would attack. They planned an experience very different from that which the island-hopping war had led the Americans to expect. To that point throughout the Pacific War, the Americans invariably had outnumbered their island-defendingadversariess by margins of 2-or-3-to-1.

On Kyushu, the odds would be less favorable to the Americans. Considerably less favorable; facing the anticipated 14 American Divisions would be 14 Japanese Divisions, 7 independent combined-arms forces of roughly Brigade strength, 3 fully equipped Tank Brigades, and several thousand Naval Troops. Around 800,000 defenders stood ready torepell some 500,000 invaders, assuming even that many had survived the furious pre-invasion defense. And unlike so often in the island campaigns, the defending troopswouldlwouldd not be ill-equipped, poorly trained labor and punishment battalions. The Home Army was well fed, well led, well trained, and well equipped. The remaining cream of the Army, tens of thousands of battle-tested veterans, elite troops in every sense, stiffened the lesser formations, which were themselves of a calibre markedly higher than that to which The Americans had become accustomed to meeting. And these troops were flush with a fanatical, almost-beyond-religious determination to sell their lives as dearly as they could.

Offshore mines, scuba divers, manned torpedoes, cunningly crafted obstacles, and onshore mines in the thousands comprised the first belt of beach defenses. Behind these were laid out over hundreds of yards row upon row of trenches and revetments, pillboxes and bunkers, all designed to be as inconspicuous as possible, and to be resistant to naval bombardment and aerial attack, with interlocking fields of fire, multiply reinforcing one another and situated to rake the beaches with withering fire. Further back were emplaced artillery and mortars, again protected by construction specifically created to offermaximunn protection from bothbombss and shells. The troops to man these positions were garrisoned, with as much of their equipment as was practical deep underground, impervious even to the 1-ton projectiles fired by Battleships. They had been drilled to remain in the safety of their shelters undergroundd fortresses, really -untill the last moment, at which point, American troops swarming ashore, the bombardment lifted to strike deeper inland, they could assume their positions, lay their weapons, and engage the enemy at the tideline.

They had developed a transportation and communication system virtually undetectable from the air, and were adept at using it. There were massive caches of arms and munitions in hundreds of concealed locations. There were yet more intertwining trenches and tunnels, hidden bunkers, hundreds of heavy artillery pieces, some mounted on rail cars, rigged to shuttle in and out of deep tunnels with concealed entrances, mortars and machineguns secreted within houses, shops, and schools, tanks disguised under haystacks and rubbish piles, endless tangles of barbed wire, fire ditches ready to be flooded with flammable liquid and set alight, and there were literally millions of anti-personnel and anti-armor mines, many already laid in the vicinity of the anticipated invasion beaches, huge quantities ready to be deployed. There were chemical weapons too. Gases and biologics, tested against Chinese, Mongolian, and Korean adversaries, were available and situated with troops trained andexperiencedd in their deployment. The defenders knew the lay of the land, and they were going to be defending their own homes and families. It was for them literally a fight to death or victory with no alternative between.

And then there was the armed and mobilized citizenry ... literally millions of them. Possessed only of the most rudimentary training, and given the crudest of weapons ... suicide weapons in large part, they were no less determined to die for theirEmperorr, Homeland, heritage, and honor than were the uniformed forces. Some 28 Million strong, the National Volunteer Combat force was galvanized under theincessantlyy drummed mantra "A Hundred Million will die gladly for our Emperor and Homeland". Armed with rifles left over from the Russo-Japanese War of 4 decades earlier, with long, grenade-tipped "lunge sticks", molotov cocktails, crude black powder bombs and mortars, swords, spears, and bows, some even with nothing more than sharpened bamboo stakes, their task was to collect payment for Japanese soil by means of massed night suicide attacks, hit-and-run ambushes, and delaying and masking operations in support of uniformed forces.

Had the invasion occurred, the casualties would have been measured in the tens and scores of thousands weekly for months. A million American casualties indeed would have been an improbably fortunate low tally. Japanese casualties likely would have been all but immeasurable ... in the many Millions at the very least. Physical damage toinfrastructuree and environment would have been unimaginable; orders of magnitude beyond anything ever seen or even contemplated. A proud and ancient nation - its society and culture literally would all but have died.

But that never happened. A half dozen planes, only two of which were armed, on August 6 and again on August 9th, saved history from the awful burden of recounting that tale. Some 80,000 to 90,000 people died at Hiroshima, perhaps half that many at Nagasaki, according to official numbers accepted by both the US and Japanese governments, and by The United Nations. Residual deaths, due to injuries and radiation poisoning, push the toll a bit higher, but still most experts estimate the carnage at well under 200,000. A crime if you wish, but surely a lesser crime than a slaughter and devastation incalculably worse. Sometimes life hands you tough choices. For untold millions, the kinder, gentler choice was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1386920#1386920]About a year later[/url], timber wrote:
... Japan - the Government of Japan - had offered no acceptance of surrender terms prior to the bombing, and in fact officially and publicly defied the surrender demand; see This Post for specifics. There always are peace factions and war factions - in Japan, right up until the Emperor's decision to surrender, the war faction was the operative power in the government. The war faction was convinced Japan could force acceptable surrender terms through one last, desperate battle. The peace faction, lobbying for acceptance of Allied terms, maintained that even should Japan stymie the inevitable invasion for a time, the Allies would prevail in the end. This was seen, by the war faction - the War Cabinet, to be precise, the Government-in-Fact - to be a defeatist attitude, and contrary to the code of Bushido and Samurai tradition.

Following the Hiroshima bomb, the prevailing opinion within the War Cabinet was that there wasn't another bomb - their scientists assured them of that. On August 8, the Japanese Ambassador to Moscow was told not only that The Soviet Union would not mediate surrender negotiations, but that as of that morning, a state of war existed between the Soviet Union and Japan. This announcement was coincident with an all-out Soviet attack on Japanese positions in Manchuria. News of that unexpected setback to Japanese hopes for a negotiated surrender arrived in Tokyo at about the same time news a second bomb had levelled Nagasaki arrived.

Throughout the remainder of that day and well into the next, debate raged in the cabinet. A unanimous agreement to surrender was required by then-current Japanese cabinet practice. A deadlock persisted, with 6 in favor of surrender under certain conditions, and 3 in favor of continuing the fight. No Japanese War Cabinet consideration was given to unconditional surrender. The issue was brought to the Emperor, who pronounced that he felt the time had come to "Bear the unbearable". An official announcement was drafted, outlining Japan's conditions for accepting surrender.

The Japanese Army, however, didn't agree, and on August 10th, an official army communique went out to all units saying in part " ... We shall fight on to the bitter end, ever firm in our faith that we shall find life in death . . . and surge forward to destroy the arrogant enemy." To counter this, the peace faction on the morning of August 11th countermanded the order with an announcement of their own,madee in the name of the Emperor. The Army, unhappy, but loyal, grudgingly went along, and while not exactly endorsing a peace proposal, did not stand in its way. The peace faction announced the terms on which Japan would surrender. The decision was made that afternoon that the Emperor would address the people, announcing the surrender as soon as the Allies had accepted Japan's counteroffer.

Around midnight Tokyo time Aug 11/12, an Allied announcement once more reaffirming the demand for unconditional surrender was made. Over the next 24 hours, the government was in turmoil, with the war faction - the War Cabinet, lobbying to commit 20 Million lives or more to the cause of defending Japanese honor through one last frenzy of air, land, and sea kamikaze tactics. The plan and the resources for this were in place; see This Post

On the morning of the 14th, Allied bombers spread leaflets throughout Japan, informing the Japanese people of their government's adamant refusal to surrender, and warning of assured destruction of the nation unless surrender was effected (it should ne noted as well that throughout June and July, continuous leaflet bombings had warned the populace that cities were targets, exhorting them to flee to the countryside). Another Imperial conference was convened, and while there was still much bickering, with the War Cabinet holding out for the last-ditch defense, the Emperor said he felt there was no choice but to accept the Allied terms. The cabinet thenaccededd to the Emperor's decision, and unanimously voted to accept the Allied terms. Around 3 that afternoon, an official broadcast announced to the Allies that "acceptance will be forthcoming soon." The Emperor's acceptance of surrender announcement was drafted, carefully refined, and the Emperor's reading of the announcement was recorded for broadcast.

The Allies immediately ceased offensive actions, reverting to ready alert status, while continuing active defense where necessary. The Japanese military showed no sign of laying down its arms, and in fact several attacks were mounted in various areas throughout the remaining Japanese-occupied territories over the next 12 to 18 hours.

In Tokyo, a coup attempt was mounted, and the commander of the Imperial Guard was assassinated. Orders to maintain resistance to the last breath were issued in his name. An abortive attack was launched on the government radio station, its goal being the prevention of the broadcast of the Emperor's recorded acceptance of Allied surrender terms. The insurrection was put down with some violence, and the staunchest proponent of continued resistance, War Minister General Anami Korechika, upon realizing that immediate surrender on Allied terms was inevitable, committed suicide.

The entire cabinet resigned, and an Imperial prince was appointed premier. The Emperor's acceptance speech was broadcast at noon on the 15th. Upon intercepting that broadcast, the Allies announced to their own forces the end of the war. The next 24 hours saw several dozen Japanese aircraft shot down while attempting to interfere with or actually attack Allied forces.

Some fragments of the military still remained reluctant to accept surrender. Over the next two weeks, members of the Imperial family, the General Staff, and higher government officials personally visited garrisons and outposts to specifically express to their commanders and officers the will of the Emperor that Japan accede to Allied demands unconditionally.

Not until the 25th of August did Allied carrier aircraft begin daily patrolling Japanese airfields, shipping facilities and movements, other military installations, and begin close reconnaissance to locate POW camps and begin emergency supply drops to them.

On August 27th, Halsey stood his fleet into Tokyo Bay. The following day, US forces landed at Tokyo's Atsugi airfield, the first US troops to set foot on Japanese soil other than as prisoners of war. On the 29th, the Allies began evacuation of the Japanese POW camps - appalled by the conditions found. On the 30th, wholesale landings of occupation troops began, first in the immediate Tokyo area, then over the next few days expanding throughout Japan. On the 2cnd of September, the formal instrument of surrender was executed aboard the USS Missouri, one civilian Japanese government representative, newly appointed Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigimitsu, one military Japanese representative, General Staff Chief Yoshijiro Umezu, and 9 Allied representatives, led by US General of The Armies, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers Douglas Mac Arthur, affixing their signatures to the document. A further 10 days were to pass before all major Japanese commands in the Pacific and on the Asian mainland signed individual instruments of surrender. See The Japanese Surrender Documents of World War II

It is my opinion, based on what I have determined to be the best available evidence, that had the bombs - both of them - not been dropped, the prevailing Allied assessment, and I believe that in fact it was overwhelmingly likely, that the Japanese Ketsu-Go defense would have met the Allied Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet invasions.



Among sources for the foregoing:

Japan's Decision to Surrender: Butow, R
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1954

The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II: Cressman, R (ed)
Naval Historical Center Press, Washington DC, 1957, rev 1999

Downfall - The End of the Japanese Imperial Empire: Frank, R
Random House, New York, 1999

Website: Japan Capitulates, August - September 1945


Deja Vu all over again, huh? Laughing

(Note: the quotes from the earlier posts were edited to correct typos, spelling errors and faulty links, some of which no doubt were missed anyway - timber)
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 07:23 pm
Right, Timber. Deja vu all over again. But it was "just in" to me in the sense that the piece came into my e-mailbox just this morning. Smile
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 03:31 am
Laughing - It'd be interesting to learn your freind's take on my little essays - go ahead and forward them to him if you wanna and get his feedback.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 04:34 am
"Any rational person following this exchange would conclude that modifying the demand for unconditional surrender to include a promise to preserve the Imperial House would not secure Japan's surrender. "

This whole thing still does not make sense. Is the author saying that those advisors like Stimson who specifically told Truman that a an offer to preserve the imperial house would secure surrender were irrational?

And what do you get when "unconditional surrender" is modified? Once you start agreeing terms, BY DEFINITION surrender is conditional. The author can play semantics for ever, but the fact is Truman kept the war going by insisting on unconditional surrender, and he did so deliberately imo to enable the atomic bomb experiments to take place whilst a state of war was extant.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:32 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>After all the discussion on this, I still find your position confusing. You admit that the bomb had much wider political implications beyond Japan, but then say the decision to use the weapon on Japan was taken without regards to the wider implications outside of Japan. Does this really hold water?


Yes. Given the situation we faced during the war, winning the war took precedence over all other considerations.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>Secondly you refer again to forcing Japan to surrender on acceptable terms. There were no terms. Surrender was to be without terms. It was unconditional surrender.


That is incorrect. We issued them a list of terms known as the Potsdam Proclamation.

Unconditional surrender meant that they were to accept all the conditions we gave, while getting none of their own.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>Although we disagree about why the bomb was used, I have never said that its use was a war crime. But if I understand you correctly, you say the bomb was used to force Japan to surrender, but using it was in fact a war crime. Is this your position?


I lean toward it being a war crime, though there are some interesting arguments against it being a crime.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:41 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>This whole thing still does not make sense. Is the author saying that those advisors like Stimson who specifically told Truman that a an offer to preserve the imperial house would secure surrender were irrational?


I don't think he said that it "would" secure surrender, just that it "would help" to secure surrender.

Regardless, Truman had no intention of making such a guarantee.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>The author can play semantics for ever, but the fact is Truman kept the war going by insisting on unconditional surrender, and he did so deliberately imo to enable the atomic bomb experiments to take place whilst a state of war was extant.


The reason Truman insisted that Japan accept only the terms that we gave them, was that he intended that Japan be forced to accept all those terms.

Had Japan accepted our terms before the A-bombs had been dropped, Truman would have been fine with that.

In fact, after Nagasaki, when Japan first tried to surrender "just with a guarantee for Hirohito's sovereignty" Truman paused the A-bombing for three days, pushing back the date for the third A-bomb from August 17-18 to August 20-21.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2005 02:41 pm
oralloy wrote:
Had Japan accepted our terms before the A-bombs had been dropped, Truman would have been fine with that.


there were no terms it was unconditional surrender. You seem to have a problem with understanding what Unconditional Surrender means.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2005 03:27 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>there were no terms


Then what were these?

Quote:
(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.


http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/potsdam.htm

http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/potsdam.htm
0 Replies
 
babsatamelia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2005 12:17 pm
Before President Roosevelt died and President Truman's rise to power; THIS (see below) was the expected behavior of all civilized nations at war. Surely you agree that no matter how despicable Germany's behavior during WWII, should all other civilized nations of the world follow the Germans by sinking to an equal level of barbarism and degradation??

"Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939"
"The United States President to the Governments of France, Italy, Germany, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939"

"Ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no part in, nor the responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities to publicly affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply."
The bombings which later devastated the clearly civilian populations of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, by the United States was CLEARLY not what was intended per International Law as it was meant to be applied.
While the U.S. maintained its position denouncing such acts as inhuman barbarism ... at the same time, we see that the US will go down in history as the the single worst violator of International Law. In the first
second of the atomic blast, over 150,000 people were instantly vaporized. These were the lucky ones.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2005 03:13 pm
(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

doesnt sound like an invitation to negotiate terms to me
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2005 05:53 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

>doesnt sound like an invitation to negotiate terms to me


It wasn't. Japan had to either accept our terms unconditionally, or be annihilated.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:00:57