Were the atomic bombs necessary

[AW1Steve]

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....[:(]

[JeffroK]

Once upon a time in the land of Hushabye
Around about the wondrous days of yore
They came across a sort of box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Decree was issued round about all with a flourish and a shout
And a gaily colored mascot tripping lightly on the fore
"Don't fiddle with this deadly box
Or break the chains, or pick the locks
And please, don't ever play about with war"

Well, the children understood, children happen to be good
They were just as good around the time of yore
They didn't try to pick the locks
Or break into that deadly box
They never tried to play about with war

Mommies didn't either, sisters, aunts, grannies neither
'Cause they were quiet and sweet and pretty
In those wondrous days of yore
Well, very much the same as now, not the ones to blame somehow
For opening up that deadly box of war

But someone did, someone battered in the lid
And spilled the insides out across the floor
A sort of bouncy bumpy ball made up of guns and flags
And all the tears and horror and the death that goes with war

It bounced right out and went bashing all about
And bumping into everything in store
And what was sad and most unfair
Is that it didn't really seem to care
Much who it bumped, or why, or what, or for

It bumped the children mainly, and I'll tell you this quite plainly
It bumps them everyday and more and more
And leaves them dead and burned and dying
Thousands of them sick and crying
'Cause when it bumps, it's really very sore

Now there's a way to stop the ball, it isn't difficult at all
All it takes is wisdom
I'm absolutely sure that we could get it back into the box
And bind the chains and lock the locks
No one seems to want to save the children anymore

Well, that's the way it all appears
'Cause it's been bouncing 'round for years and years
In spite of all the wisdom whizzed since those wondrous days of yore
And the time they came across the box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Kenny Lascelles

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....[:(]

Based on what? The opinions expressed within this thread are not opinions that you agree with, therefore the thread should be closed?

If that's the case, you should try an echo chamber rather than an internet forum

That is an acceptable distillation of the situation so long as one understands the importance of the three is not 33% each. #2 is more like 99.9%. HST had no duty to Soviet territorial aims nor did he have a duty to the Japanese people. He, like Lincoln, was elected on a wartime ticket, and after the Casablanca conference. The American people knew what they were doing. And it is clear from the sources I quoted, primarily Truman and Churchill's diaries, that they saw the surrender in quite different terms. (As did Stalin.) As I said up-thread, Europeans at the time did not understand the effect of Pearl Harbor on the diplomatic system in play in 1945. Not even the PM who should have known better.

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....[:(]

warspite1

But why? This has been a sensible, grown up debate about a major WWII event? Why has that shaken your faith in Matrix and this forum? I would have thought the reverse was true - particularly as you were the one right at the start that assumed it would go haywire and be locked pretty quickly. That it hasn't is testament to those here that have remained courteous despite the contentious subject matter.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Amoral

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

There are three facts regarding Japanese diplomacy prior to the atomic bombs being dropped:

1. The government was willing to surrender on negotated terms.
2. The Americans were only going to accept unconditional surrender.
3. The Soviets acting as intermediates represented the last chance they had of surrendering under terms.

That is an acceptable distillation of the situation so long as one understands the importance of the three is not 33% each. #2 is more like 99.9%. HST had no duty to Soviet territorial aims nor did he have a duty to the Japanese people. He, like Lincoln, was elected on a wartime ticket, and after the Casablanca conference. The American people knew what they were doing. And it is clear from the sources I quoted, primarily Truman and Churchill's diaries, that they saw the surrender in quite different terms. (As did Stalin.) As I said up-thread, Europeans at the time did not understand the effect of Pearl Harbor on the diplomatic system in play in 1945. Not even the PM who should have known better.

If there was a moral obligation to avoid the bombings by negotiating a peace, the Allies can't get out of that obligation by saying "I don't want to and I don't have to". The mood of the nation does not alter what is and what is not moral.

That's a big if, though.

I don't generally use "morality" given its religious overtones. I prefer "ethical."

Does a nation at war always have an ethical obligation to make peace? No. Does a nation at war ever have an ethical obligation? Probably. But conditions apply.

In real terms the nation with the power to decide has, well, the power to decide. I'll bring up Pearl Harbor one last time. Japan gave away its chips there. When your opponent is 99% beaten and moreover put a horseshoe in his glove during the first round, breaking your jaw, you have no obligation to let him up off the mat in the 15th round. If you want mercy then leave the horseshoe on the horse.

Ethics, unlike religion-based morality, is situational.

To return to the question asked by the OP, excising the Russian politician non-issue, were the atomic bombs necessary? In real terms, yes. In theory there were a number of other cost-benefit relationships available to Truman, all of which have been hashed out here. Invasion, blockade, Soviet aid either military or diplomatic, giving up unconditional surrender. But in real terms Truman didn't have to accept any of them without trying a low-cost (to the US, his sworn clientele) solution first. Manhattan risked four B-29 crews in total. And it worked. From a US POV it was completely ethical. Not one US citizen died in its execution.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....[:(]

I don't understand why you feel that way. It is completely on-topic and quite polite. There are quite a few threads on this forum that don't interest me. I solve that by not reading them.[;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII. Churchill's questioning Truman at Potsdam shows that even by August 1945 he, the leader of the Empire, still looked at diplomacy in the "old way." Truman's view was much more linear and visceral. It reflected the POV of the US citizenry. Read a lot of the US media in those years if you want examples.

The book I reccoed and you said you'd read wrings out unconditional surrender from multiple points of the compass. It comes down in favor but hardly calls it an unvarnished success. You can criticize it. And ultimately the US did back away from it just enough. But it had a lot of utility in 1944-45 up until mid-August. It focused the mind as it were. Recall too it did not apply only to Japan. In that sense it may have kept Stalin on track as well, although perhaps more was not needed for him after 1941's events.

What did Japan have to gain by giving up? Their lives. If they didn't value them in a Western way that's a shame, but the US was prepared if it came to it to extinguish them root and branch. At great cost to be sure, but no less the case. Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp. If Vienna had fallen to the Mongols you guys might, but then again we wouldn't be having this conversation if Vienna had fallen. Maybe talk to the ghosts of Babylon's residents?

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: JeffK



Once upon a time in the land of Hushabye
Around about the wondrous days of yore
They came across a sort of box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Decree was issued round about all with a flourish and a shout
And a gaily colored mascot tripping lightly on the fore
"Don't fiddle with this deadly box
Or break the chains, or pick the locks
And please, don't ever play about with war"

Well, the children understood, children happen to be good
They were just as good around the time of yore
They didn't try to pick the locks
Or break into that deadly box
They never tried to play about with war

Mommies didn't either, sisters, aunts, grannies neither
'Cause they were quiet and sweet and pretty
In those wondrous days of yore
Well, very much the same as now, not the ones to blame somehow
For opening up that deadly box of war

But someone did, someone battered in the lid
And spilled the insides out across the floor
A sort of bouncy bumpy ball made up of guns and flags
And all the tears and horror and the death that goes with war

It bounced right out and went bashing all about
And bumping into everything in store
And what was sad and most unfair
Is that it didn't really seem to care
Much who it bumped, or why, or what, or for

It bumped the children mainly, and I'll tell you this quite plainly
It bumps them everyday and more and more
And leaves them dead and burned and dying
Thousands of them sick and crying
'Cause when it bumps, it's really very sore

Now there's a way to stop the ball, it isn't difficult at all
All it takes is wisdom
I'm absolutely sure that we could get it back into the box
And bind the chains and lock the locks
No one seems to want to save the children anymore

Well, that's the way it all appears
'Cause it's been bouncing 'round for years and years
In spite of all the wisdom whizzed since those wondrous days of yore
And the time they came across the box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Kenny Lascelles

I like this one. Thanks Jeff.

[spence]

The Japanese (military) government sowed the wind at Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Bataan, the Burma Railway and a lot of other places...too bad for them if they reaped the whirlwind at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

Churchill's questioning Truman at Potsdam shows that even by August 1945 he, the leader of the Empire, still looked at diplomacy in the "old way." Truman's view was much more linear and visceral. It reflected the POV of the US citizenry. Read a lot of the US media in those years if you want examples.

That is a very good point. The "traditional" conduct of wars in Europe were fought until it was evident that one side had a clear advantage and was going to win, at which point the losing side gave up and tried to hack out some terms. Even WW1 was not an exception to this, though the Central Powers were excluded from talks.

You don't see the same with the Pacific War - it's not until after the fall of Saipan that the Japanese recognized even the possibility of defeat, and not till 1945 for the Japanese government to realize that defeat was a certainty.

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

That depends on your opinion of who sunk the USS Maine.

What did Japan have to gain by giving up? Their lives. If they didn't value them in a Western way that's a shame, but the US was prepared if it came to it to extinguish them root and branch. At great cost to be sure, but no less the case. Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp. If Vienna had fallen to the Mongols you guys might, but then again we wouldn't be having this conversation if Vienna had fallen. Maybe talk to the ghosts of Babylon's residents?

Again, another good point. We tend to view the war from a Western perspective, which (even now) treats large numbers of casualties quite differently from that of the Asian perspective.

It's an interesting difference in perspective that is a recurring theme, not just with the Japanese. It re-appears again in the Chinese Civil war, Korea, and in Vietnam.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp.

warspite1

Wow! So who exactly are these Europeans that all think alike? No Americans that don't understand that viewpoint then?..............

France's attack on her ally Spain in 1808 was pretty dastardly - and provoked in the Spanish population a desire for revenge that was brutal in the extreme.

When France wanted her pound of flesh at Versailles that position was understood by "Americans" was it?

[wdolson]

AW1Steve I am probably the only moderator following this thread. So if your respect has declined, put that completely on me.

I did almost lock this thread a few days ago, but the participants got more polite and it is about a period subject, though mostly tangential to the game. I've debated locking it every day though.

People can PM me privately if they want it locked. So far the only complaints I have seen have been public ones here.

Bill

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

AW1Steve I am probably the only moderator following this thread. So if your respect has declined, put that completely on me.

I did almost lock this thread a few days ago, but the participants got more polite and it is about a period subject, though mostly tangential to the game. I've debated locking it every day though.

People can PM me privately if they want it locked. So far the only complaints I have seen have been public ones here.

Bill

Bill my biggest gripe/concern had been consistency. We've had a lot of threads locked that weren't even close to where this one went. When I look at the grounds , other than personal attacks , the biggest cause was current politics. Please go back to post #1 and tell me that there wasn't a question comparing the bomb dropping to a current political event (which was linked).

I'm not a wet blanket. In the past I've argued to keep threads like this alive. But can we get some definite guidance here? Where exactly are the lines? In the past it's been "don't even think of going close". Now?

I recognize that you are a new sheriff (OK, one that's been on the job a while). But can we have a definite policy? I've searched the forums for several days and can't find it in writing , other than comments from your predecessors. Where are they?

[Orm]

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

Churchill's questioning Truman at Potsdam shows that even by August 1945 he, the leader of the Empire, still looked at diplomacy in the "old way." Truman's view was much more linear and visceral. It reflected the POV of the US citizenry. Read a lot of the US media in those years if you want examples.

That is a very good point. The "traditional" conduct of wars in Europe were fought until it was evident that one side had a clear advantage and was going to win, at which point the losing side gave up and tried to hack out some terms. Even WW1 was not an exception to this, though the Central Powers were excluded from talks.

You don't see the same with the Pacific War - it's not until after the fall of Saipan that the Japanese recognized even the possibility of defeat, and not till 1945 for the Japanese government to realize that defeat was a certainty.

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

That depends on your opinion of who sunk the USS Maine.

What did Japan have to gain by giving up? Their lives. If they didn't value them in a Western way that's a shame, but the US was prepared if it came to it to extinguish them root and branch. At great cost to be sure, but no less the case. Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp. If Vienna had fallen to the Mongols you guys might, but then again we wouldn't be having this conversation if Vienna had fallen. Maybe talk to the ghosts of Babylon's residents?

Again, another good point. We tend to view the war from a Western perspective, which (even now) treats large numbers of casualties quite differently from that of the Asian perspective.

It's an interesting difference in perspective that is a recurring theme, not just with the Japanese. It re-appears again in the Chinese Civil war, Korea, and in Vietnam.

To your good inputs I would add this: look at the relative ages of the two WWII society groups, US and Europe-in-general. The president and many of the US flag officers had been born either on the frontier or in the immediate post-Civil War era. Their fathers and grandfathers were CW veterans to a great extent. Their childhoods had seen the end of the wars against the American Indian, wars which in some cases had a genocidal tone. They were rough men in ways European officers and politicians were not. They were educated and they were smart, but they didn't come from the same cloth. We were and still are a young nation. We were and still are a more violent nation than the European homelands many of us claim.

That's why I say Truman was more linear and more visceral. After Lincoln he is in my view our greatest president. A great deal of his effectiveness came from being a leader first and a politician far behind that. We could have done far worse having someone else oppose Stalin. I think the two of them understood the other, even if they didn't like each other.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Orm

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

When I wrote that I was referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor, an attack that took place before a declaration of war. Until 9/11 it was the single worst attack on American territory in our history, and against the lower population of 1941 it was worse. There are reasons why the declaration was late in D.C. and they're of interest to diplomatic historians. But on the ground and in the American mind it was a vicious backstab, a breaking of the rules of diplomacy and warfare. And afterward there was not going to be any quarter given Japan.

[Wuffer]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

[JeffroK]

Not assuming that everyone fits in the basket I lump them in but;

Europe has an immensly long history of warfare, most conflict ended in a Treaty which took land from the loser and added to the victor. Future generations would be back at war to regain their heritage or to get some more land. They are more accepting to peace treaties as they have to live with their neighbours (and plan revenge)

The USA does not have this background, even its Civil War was fought with a ferocity which had not been seen in Europe at that stage, victory didnt involve capturing the CSA Capital, but when its main army was finally made ineffective.

Europe may have seen 7/12 & 11/9 as a case of "getting in first" wheras the USA saw it more as a case of Rape, and therefore its reaction was more of getting revenge rather than "just another of those wars which happen every second generation. IMVHO, the mindset in the USA is more Black & White whereas Europe see a lot more shades of gray.

Therefore we get different views about the same event, what one groups sees as "the government attempting to surrender" is also seen as "an ineffective group offering something it cannot deliver"

In the end, I see it that the million odd American, Indian, Australian, British, Chinese, Filipino etc Servicemen were far happier at an immediate end to hostilities rather than a drawn out campaign waiting for politicians to sign a piece of paper.

End result was a beatan & compliant Japan instead of a "Weimar in the Pacific"

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There are reasons why the declaration was late in D.C. and they're of interest to diplomatic historians. But on the ground and in the American mind it was a vicious backstab, a breaking of the rules of diplomacy and warfare. And afterward there was not going to be any quarter given Japan.

It's probably important to note that the 14-part message which the Japanese diplomats delivered late to ambassador Hull on December 7th has often been characterized as a declaration of war, but it was far more ambiguous than that. The message simply repeated Japan's position, rejected the American position, and expressed the view that further negotiation seemed pointless. While this was certainly ominous, and its significance was not lost on the American cryptanalysts or administration, the note did not formally declare war or even present an ultimatum.

A formal declaration of war was printed on the front page of Japan's newspapers in the evening edition of December 8, but not delivered to the U.S. government until the day after the attack.

Frankly, even if a formal declaration of war had been delivered a half hour before the attack I think it would have made little difference. Which scenario is more despicable? Someone attacking you and saying "I'm declaring war on you" or someone declaring war on you and then punching you in the mouth immediately after? It's a sneak attack versus a sucker punch.


By the way, as discussions on the always controversial decision regarding the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this has been one of the more level-toned I've seen. Most seem to quickly degenerate into twin mushroom clouds of either defensive or sanctimonious blather.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were). [&:]

Just pointing out...