I am suggesting that we DID NOT know IN ADVANCE what the effect would subsequently be of sparing the emperor. We might have found it necessary to excecute the emperor.
:question:
Necessary? On what grounds? That he was more guilty than the USA expected? I wonder if anybody knows what the role of Hirohito was, in beginning the war, if he ordered or knew about the atrocities etc. etc.
You can paint the US decision as an evil conspiracy, based only on aspirations of global domination, and 80 years after the decision was made, it may ring true to all those who have forgotten the complex realities of the time, but I think that it is a distorted view.
I am afraid in war people are prepared to do atrocities. We should not see ourselves simply as the 'good guys'. We are humans, and able to do the greatest deeds out of compassion, and the most horrible crimes out of revenge and will to power. If everybody who thinks of himself as a 'good guy' really was a 'good guy', there would be nearly no violence in the world.
But, ultimately, what effectively happened is that the US ended the greatest war in mankind's history (a war that we did not start, BTW).
Of course, I do not forget that. But even your best friend can morally err. Trying to whitewash this is just as wrong as denialist movements in Germany or Japan. Don't you think I know about the atrocities the Dutch did in Indonesia? (Just in case you did not know yet, I am Dutch.)
I am suggesting that we DID NOT know IN ADVANCE what the effect would subsequently be of sparing the emperor. We might have found it necessary to excecute the emperor.
:question:
Necessary? On what grounds? That he was more guilty than the USA expected? I wonder if anybody knows what the role of Hirohito was, in beginning the war, if he ordered or knew about the atrocities etc. etc.
You can paint the US decision as an evil conspiracy, based only on aspirations of global domination, and 80 years after the decision was made, it may ring true to all those who have forgotten the complex realities of the time, but I think that it is a distorted view.
I am afraid in war people are prepared to do atrocities. We should not see ourselves simply as the 'good guys'. We are humans, and able to do the greatest deeds out of compassion, and the most horrible crimes out of revenge and will to power. If everybody who thinks of himself as a 'good guy' really was a 'good guy', there would be nearly no violence in the world.
But, ultimately, what effectively happened is that the US ended the greatest war in mankind's history (a war that we did not start, BTW).
Of course, I do not forget that. But even your best friend can morally err. Trying to whitewash this is just as wrong as denialist movements in Germany or Japan. Don't you think I know about the atrocities the Dutch did in Indonesia? (Just in case you did not know yet, I am Dutch.)
MacArthur was pragmatic. He did not want to get rid of Hirohito even if Hirohito were guilty of war crimes. And he didn't get of Hirohito (even though Hirohito was quite possibly guilty of war crimes) because he suspected and then confirmed AFTER taking over Japan, that this would be the best course for maintaining stability for Japan going forward.
People do atrocious things in war because war is inherently atrocious. And oftentimes there ARE "bad-guys" (i.e., at least "not-so-good-guys") and "good-guys" (i.e., at least, "not-as-bad-guys") in wars. If this were not the case, then you would have been just as satisfied with Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito taking over the world as with what actually happened.
You suggest that dropping the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, but you do so, from the standpoint of an armchair quarterback, critiquing a player's action on a single play that happened 70 years ago, as if you understood and could fully relate to everything that was going on, at that moment in time, for that player in that single play, and as if that player should have been absolutely prescient, because you happen to have the advantage of hindsight.
Of course the world would be a better place, it seems, if all humans were always compassionate humanists. But the reality is that this is not the fullness of our nature and cultural/social advancement, yet. And it was not the case near the end of WWII.
I am not denying Roling's point that there were political considerations. But this still does not preclude the factor that we could not honestly accept Japan's surrender on the condition that Hirohito would be spared. We did not know, in advance, whether doing so would have lead to a prolonged devastating insurgency.
Sorry, I do not get what you mean. Sparing the emperor would cause devastating insurgency? But in the end it was what the USA did.
OK. Roling asserts that we knew in advance that our agreeing to sparing the emperor, would result in a surrender, right away. I am accepting that, based on your saying that Roling backs up that assertion.
I am suggesting that we DID NOT know IN ADVANCE what the effect would subsequently be of sparing the emperor. We might have found it necessary to excecute the emperor. We only knew whether that was the best course of action AFTER we were in control of Japan, but we DID NOT know that IN ADVANCE.
You can paint the US decision as an evil conspiracy, based only on aspirations of global domination, and 80 years after the decision was made, it may ring true to all those who have forgotten the complex realities of the time, but I think that it is a distorted view. Of course there were other considerations, that Roling, apparently, effectively points out. But, ultimately, what effectively happened is that the US ended the greatest war in mankind's history (a war that we did not start, BTW).
What would the US have done if it hadn't had the bomb? Give up? Surrender? Strafe Japan with the firepower we had?
Lois
It would probably have continued the atrocious fire-bombing, carpet bombing, and then sent in land troops for a devastating (on both sides) land assault. Russia would have probably joined in by then, as well, unless the Japanese surrendered first.
Japan was only considering surrender in July of '45. on July 26th, the US demanded unconditional surrender. Hirohito did not approve a counter offer even though his advisors suggested surrendering with some conditions. So on Aug. 6th - Hiroshima was a-bombed. 1 day passed. 2 days passed. There was still not even a counter offer of surrender. Aug 9 - Nagasaki was a-bombed. On top of this the Russians were about to get involved. THEN Hirohito directed that there be a surrender proposal.
Considering what the Russians did to East Germany for many years, the Japanese were extraordinarily better off than they would have been if the Russians had gotten involved and taken over part of their country.
People do atrocious things in war because war is inherently atrocious. And oftentimes there ARE "bad-guys" (i.e., at least "not-so-good-guys") and "good-guys" (i.e., at least, "not-as-bad-guys") in wars. If this were not the case, then you would have been just as satisfied with Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito taking over the world as with what actually happened.
That was what not I meant. If, in your words 'not-as-bad-guys' make a strategic and/or moral error, one should be able to say so. And if this 'not-as-bad-guy' admits of this error, he makes himself an 'even-lesser-bad-guy'. (But isn't the lesson from history that we do not learn from history?).
You suggest that dropping the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, but you do so, from the standpoint of an armchair quarterback, critiquing a player's action on a single play that happened 70 years ago, as if you understood and could fully relate to everything that was going on, at that moment in time, for that player in that single play, and as if that player should have been absolutely prescient, because you happen to have the advantage of hindsight.
What is the difference with an armchair proponent of the bombings? And what is wrong about having hindsight? Is it therefore wrong, looking backwards, that we should not have done it?
Of course the world would be a better place, it seems, if all humans were always compassionate humanists. But the reality is that this is not the fullness of our nature and cultural/social advancement, yet. And it was not the case near the end of WWII.
Yep. But it should not withhold us from trying to understand what happened, why it happened, and if it was morally justified from our point of view now, and of yesterday.
It would probably have continued the atrocious fire-bombing, carpet bombing, and then sent in land troops for a devastating (on both sides) land assault. Russia would have probably joined in by then, as well, unless the Japanese surrendered first.
Well, probably not. Let Hirohito stay, and the war would have ended earlier. No it is clear for me, the USA wanted to use the bombs.
Hirohito did not approve a counter offer even though his advisors suggested surrendering with some conditions. So on Aug. 6th - Hiroshima was a-bombed. 1 day passed. 2 days passed. There was still not even a counter offer of surrender. Aug 9 - Nagasaki was a-bombed. On top of this the Russians were about to get involved. THEN Hirohito directed that there be a surrender proposal.
Hirohito probably was nearly not informed. Just remember what I wrote. When the Japanese war-cabinet that could not decide, as an exceptional decision, let Hirohito decide. He decided for capitulation immediately. Normally Hirohito was not involved.
Do you think that King Alexander of the Netherlands, or Queen Elizabeth is making decisions? It was not different in Japan, with the only difference that the emperor was seen as god-like.
(Reasonable gods normally do not interfer with earthly affairs... %-P )
People do atrocious things in war because war is inherently atrocious. And oftentimes there ARE "bad-guys" (i.e., at least "not-so-good-guys") and "good-guys" (i.e., at least, "not-as-bad-guys") in wars. If this were not the case, then you would have been just as satisfied with Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito taking over the world as with what actually happened.
That was what not I meant. If, in your words 'not-as-bad-guys' make a strategic and/or moral error, one should be able to say so. And if this 'not-as-bad-guy' admits of this error, he makes himself an 'even-lesser-bad-guy'. (But isn't the lesson from history that we do not learn from history?).
You suggest that dropping the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, but you do so, from the standpoint of an armchair quarterback, critiquing a player's action on a single play that happened 70 years ago, as if you understood and could fully relate to everything that was going on, at that moment in time, for that player in that single play, and as if that player should have been absolutely prescient, because you happen to have the advantage of hindsight.
What is the difference with an armchair proponent of the bombings? And what is wrong about having hindsight? Is it therefore wrong, looking backwards, that we should not have done it?
Of course the world would be a better place, it seems, if all humans were always compassionate humanists. But the reality is that this is not the fullness of our nature and cultural/social advancement, yet. And it was not the case near the end of WWII.
Yep. But it should not withhold us from trying to understand what happened, why it happened, and if it was morally justified from our point of view now, and of yesterday.
Reflecting on what has happened and trying to determine what one might have done differently, for better results, in similar situations in the future, is certainly useful. But hindsight, especially remote and well-removed-from-the-context hindsight can be way off the mark. In this discussion, we are trying to determine the morality of an action that took place in 1945, at the end of the greatest war mankind has ever known. I suggest that you are coloring that decision too much with the morality of 2015, and of the generations of no-world-war that have passed since. And none of us has an absolutely clear picture of the totality of realities that impinged on the decision to use the a-bombs as they were used, at that time.
It would probably have continued the atrocious fire-bombing, carpet bombing, and then sent in land troops for a devastating (on both sides) land assault. Russia would have probably joined in by then, as well, unless the Japanese surrendered first.
Well, probably not. Let Hirohito stay, and the war would have ended earlier. No it is clear for me, the USA wanted to use the bombs.
O f course the US wanted to use the bombs, else they would not have done so. The question is whether it was, only, for what you consider to be immoral reasons.
Hirohito did not approve a counter offer even though his advisors suggested surrendering with some conditions. So on Aug. 6th - Hiroshima was a-bombed. 1 day passed. 2 days passed. There was still not even a counter offer of surrender. Aug 9 - Nagasaki was a-bombed. On top of this the Russians were about to get involved. THEN Hirohito directed that there be a surrender proposal.
Hirohito probably was nearly not informed. Just remember what I wrote. When the Japanese war-cabinet that could not decide, as an exceptional decision, let Hirohito decide. He decided for capitulation immediately. Normally Hirohito was not involved...
The end of WWII was not a normal time. And being considered a god by the dedicated people of Japan is of no small importance.
From Wikipedia (subject Hirohito):
"...On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the Emperor that it be accepted only if one to four conditions were agreed, including a guarantee of the Emperor's continued position in Japanese society. The Emperor decided not to surrender...."
Are you sure you have your timeline correct?
The end of WWII was not a normal time. And being considered a god by the dedicated people of Japan is of no small importance.
From Wikipedia (subject Hirohito):
"...On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the Emperor that it be accepted only if one to four conditions were agreed, including a guarantee of the Emperor's continued position in Japanese society. The Emperor decided not to surrender...."
From the minutes of the Japanese war-cabinet Röling obviously read something else.
Did the Hirohito decide not to surrender, or did the war-cabinet decide that unconditional surrender was not acceptable, and did Hirohito just as they advised? Any other sources?
The end of WWII was not a normal time. And being considered a god by the dedicated people of Japan is of no small importance.
From Wikipedia (subject Hirohito):
"...On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the Emperor that it be accepted only if one to four conditions were agreed, including a guarantee of the Emperor's continued position in Japanese society. The Emperor decided not to surrender...."
From the minutes of the Japanese war-cabinet Röling obviously read something else.
Did the Hirohito decide not to surrender, or did the war-cabinet decide that unconditional surrender was not acceptable, and did Hirohito just as they advised? Any other sources?
No, do you have the minutes of the Japanese war-cabinet? We'll figure this out, yet, and save the world from the possibly immoral (or not) action of 70 years ago.
This topic has already been hashed and rehashed here on the forum but today marks the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and the comments in the media, both positive and negative are flying fast and loose. I wonder what views some of the new posters have on the topic if any?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-remembers-hiroshima-bombing-with-call-to-abolish-nuclear-arms-1438824991
Cap't Jack
"Fission, the basic process that makes nuclear weapons possible, was first discovered in Berlin in December 1938" and we had reason to believe that Japan was also developing 'the bomb' so in my opinion it was a race and I'm glad we got there first. The Japanese proved to be an extremely fanatical foe, Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Tarawa, etc. drove that bloody point home. How would it have been to wade ashore on the Japanese mainland? Pretty much unthinkable, as long as there was another way.
I'm a veteran who detests war, young men dying to settle old men's arguments. The necessity of Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. is debatable but WWII was a war we had to win, at all costs. What the allies were forced to accomplish on June 6, 1944 would not even be considered by today's battle strategists. Iwo Jima was described as "throwing human flesh against reinforced concrete", totally nuts! It was a different time.