So the ends justify the means? Anyone who really wants to stop a war should use nuclear weapons.
Lois
So the ends justify the means? Anyone who really wants to stop a war should use nuclear weapons. LoisI don't think anyone has said that Lois but sometimes the situations justifies the actions taken. Ask yourself this 1) would we feel better about this if we had leveled the two cities and killed the same number of people with thousands of bombs from hundred of bombers as we did in several other cities during the war instead of using two relatively low yield nuclear weapons? 2) how would you justify the loss of even one more allied life to the families of those men if we chose not to drop those bombs especially after all the sacrifices American families had already made up to that point? This discussion started with the mention of the book Unbroken. No one persons experience can justify anything that was done but read the book when you get a chance. It has nothing to do with the dropping of the bombs. That incident only takes up a few paragraphs near the end of the book but if you want to get a feel for what it was to live through the Pacific conflict and understand why a country might have decided to use the bomb this book might give you some insight.
So the ends justify the means? Anyone who really wants to stop a war should use nuclear weapons. LoisI don't think anyone has said that Lois but sometimes the situations justifies the actions taken. Ask yourself this 1) would we feel better about this if we had leveled the two cities and killed the same number of people with thousands of bombs from hundred of bombers as we did in several other cities during the war instead of using two relatively low yield nuclear weapons? 2) how would you justify the loss of even one more allied life to the families of those men if we chose not to drop those bombs especially after all the sacrifices American families had already made up to that point? This discussion started with the mention of the book Unbroken. No one persons experience can justify anything that was done but read the book when you get a chance. It has nothing to do with the dropping of the bombs. That incident only takes up a few paragraphs near the end of the book but if you want to get a feel for what it was to live through the Pacific conflict and understand why a country might have decided to use the bomb this book might give you some insight. I know very well why it was done, I'm just not comfortable accepting the justification. It seems like overkill to me. Yes, the Japanese were engaging in inhumane actions and costing the US many lives. I get that. But what would have happened if we had not had the bomb then? Would history be so very different? Should we consider using it again? So far, we are the only country to have used a nuclear weapon in wartime. And now we want to make the rules for everyone else. Something is wrong with this picture. I admit that if I lived through the times, I might have a different view. My parents thought was the right thing. I learned about what the terrible results were years after the bombings and that has colored my view. Most of the people affected were innocent civilians. The US must have known that before they bombed Japan. They were not targeting just the military. Lois
Take these 2 remarks:
Also, in my understanding, the repercussions of radioactive fallout were not understood.
1) would we feel better about this if we had leveled the two cities and killed the same number of people with thousands of bombs from hundred of bombers as we did in several other cities during the war instead of using two relatively low yield nuclear weapons?Yep. And now put them together: without any problem (i.e. we do not kill more people than with conventional bombs), we can test what the effects of the atomic bombs will be. With the additional advantage that the Russians now what powerful weapons we have. You must be pretty naive to believe that these considerations did not play a role in the decisions.
The dropping of the A-bombs, were followed by the unconditional surrender of the last Axis power and the end of WWII.Yep. But 'followed by' does not mean 'caused by'. I referred to Röling who has read the minutes of the last cabinet meeting when for capitulation was decided: the main point was the position of the Emperor, not the A-bombs.
And to GdB, what would happen to Hirohito was not a foregone conclusion. McArthur was charged with dealing with post war Japan. If his investigation had discovered that Hirohito was culpable, he might have been executed as a war criminal, as were a relatively small number of other Japanese military leaders.And don't you think the Americans did not know this in advance?
That’s all nice and fine, but it doesn’t explain why Truman did not stop the war by not demanding unconditional surrender. Why not give the message that the Emperor could stay? You see, your points just give the motivation to end the war asap. They do not show that throwing the A-bombs was only viable alternative. BTW, my point is not that Truman did not decide. My point is that the atomic bombs were not necessary, and that people knew that (no hindsight). If you can show me that Röling’s points are incorrect according to modern historians, then let me know which sources substantiate those claims.GdB, this is conjecture on your part as the evidence I presented clearly shows Truman's motives for ordering the bombs to be used to Bring a swift end to the war and that yes, HE did make the decision as ALL primary and secondary evidence clearly shows. Also I have addressed the topic of unconditional surrender using primary sources but will add that several staff and cabinet meetings held on and around June 15th of 45' were convened to particularly discuss this subject (see a newer monograph by Historian Paul Ham Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombs and their Aftermath Chapter 10. He gives a detailed explanation of the meetings and why Truman decided that the Unconditional Surrender condition should be retained. First of all, it was Truman's intention to continue Roosevelt's policy from the Yalta Conference in 1943 that Japan should surrender unconditionally, also a detailed discussion of the casualty figures and intelligence reports concerning the Japanese home defenses (two million men and the most modern equipment plus underground airfields for potential Kamikaze attacks), the Japanese philosophy of gyokusai meaning noble sacrifice or fight to the last despite invasion or blockade, the revoking of clause two of the interim Committee wherein Britain and France had broken the agreement not to,use the bomb on a third party without mutual consent, American public opinion overwhelming favored the unconditional surrender of Japan and war crimes trials to punish the Emperor and key officials, e.g. Hedeki Tojo for the brutal attack on Pearl Harbor and for the destruction of American lives and property. Truman was also influenced by his new Sec. Of State James Byrnes who favored unconditional surrender and favored using the bombs to end the war. And yes, there was a growing concern about Soviet motives. I haven't responded to Roling's contentions directly because I haven't read his monograph,but it appears that his conclusions are based on pretty much the same primary and secondary sources used by other authors who attempt to show the influences on Truman's ultimate decision. It begs the question now, was he too hasty or just plain wrong to have unleashed this power on a nearly beaten enemy? In my estimation and given the evidence I've read from the period, no. Once again hindsight... Could the allies have starved the Japanese into submission? Probably after several months and countless thousands of civilian lives. Meantime what about the Soviets who hungrily sought control of Northern Japan for their own purposes, namely naval bases in the Pacific which they were shut out of after the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. The question of retaining the Emperor of course might have smoothed the way to peace but the War ministry would have undoubtedly have insisted to fight on to save face, e.g. Even after the Emperor declared a surrender, several units of the air force were ready to defy the Emperor's edict and dive their planes on the Battleship Missouri as she entered Tokyo Harbor (see the memoirs of pilot Suboro Sakai, Japan's highest surviving air ace). The "noble Spirit" was still afoot. Also, I have no doubt that this debate will continue into the future as historians and PhD. Candidates attempt to sustain or revise the evidence in the future. Actually that's what makes writing a thesis or dissertation tedious, but fun! He's another source to consider by author Nathan Donahue. He concisely presents both sides: http://csis.org/blog/understanding-decision-drop-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki Cap't Jack
And one other point: I cannot begin anything with the label ‘revisionist’. If history is revised in the light of new evidence, then it is just what a science is supposed to do. So please show where authors are wrong. To denigrate someone as ‘revisionist’ will not work for me.I wanted to respond to this in a separate post, as you probably know there are two views of "revisionism", the first being your contention that, yes as new evidence comes to light historians do "revise" history in a good way either by further explanation in sustaining a position or altering the previous conclusion in the light of new evidence. And as you mention this is the "scientific method" at work in the liberal arts. This is the stuff of the masters thesis or the doctoral dissertation that I mentioned previously. It's actually what you're supposed to do, uncover new evidence to add to or alter a previously published monograph. It's precisely what I did in researching and writing my thesis and it took me three years of research and a year to compile and write it. Tedious but a hellova lot of fun and I got to correspond with a lot of people who helped along the way. Now, the "revisionism" to which I'm referring is the author who already has a preconceived agenda and who will intentionally omit or twist the facts to suit his point of view be it religious, economic pacificistic, or political. Here's an example, in the early nineties here in the U.S. There has been a movement afoot to rewrite the early history of the American political philosophy to interject Evangelical Xtian beliefs into the early writing of the founding fathers in order to make them appear as committed Xtians. Author and evangelical Xtian David Barton is notorious for twisting facts and for cobbling together and omitting facts that lead the reader to a preconceived conclusion that the founders wanted a Bible based Christian Nation. Thankfully there are other historians out there to thwart his efforts, Chris Rada's book Liars for Jesus totally debunks his efforts by clearly showing his omissions of primary evidence etc. it is now a major issue in some states as this misinformation is seeping into high school textbooks, e.g. Texas. There are other examples but I thought this one would suffice for now. So, no I wasn't inferring that Roling (still can't figure out where to access the umlaut as I lost your earlier post about it) was a "revisionist" in that sense. My concern is that there has been a revival of the bomb issue as of the Enola Gay controversy. The media picked it up as well and now people, using hindsight are looking back at the "warmongering"Americans who dropped the bomb on a hapless and defeated people and there will in all probability be spin off books replete with conspiracy theories etc. that's the revisionism I'm vehemently opposed to and always will be. Cap't Jack
So the ends justify the means? Anyone who really wants to stop a war should use nuclear weapons. LoisI don't think anyone has said that Lois but sometimes the situations justifies the actions taken. That's kinda what I've been hearing.
Ask yourself this 1) would we feel better about this if we had leveled the two cities and killed the same number of people with thousands of bombs from hundred of bombers as we did in several other cities during the war instead of using two relatively low yield nuclear weapons? 2) how would you justify the loss of even one more allied life to the families of those men if we chose not to drop those bombs especially after all the sacrifices American families had already made up to that point? This discussion started with the mention of the book Unbroken. No one persons experience can justify anything that was done but read the book when you get a chance. It has nothing to do with the dropping of the bombs. That incident only takes up a few paragraphs near the end of the book but if you want to get a feel for what it was to live through the Pacific conflict and understand why a country might have decided to use the bomb this book might give you some insight.1 - Relative? To what? The other nuclear bombs that were dropped or existed at the time? The question you aren't asking is, would the nuclear arms build up have occurred as it did if no one had ever used one? I don't agree that we could have done that kind of damage with conventional bombs, nor would it have been necessary to bomb that much if it were possible. So, I'd be fine with not dropping the big ones. 2 - The same way I would justify every other lost life in war, I wouldn't. Why were we fighting them anyway? Because they made us mad? That's childish. Because we felt we had some better way of telling them how to run their country? Because we are fascists? You ask me to choose between big bombs and small bombs, how about none?
1 - Relative? To what? The other nuclear bombs that were dropped or existed at the time? The question you aren't asking is, would the nuclear arms build up have occurred as it did if no one had ever used one? I don't agree that we could have done that kind of damage with conventional bombs, nor would it have been necessary to bomb that much if it were possible. So, I'd be fine with not dropping the big ones.My point was that the weapons used on Japan were small relative to the ones we have today. AS far as the arms buildup it was inevitable. Nothing would have stopped the development of nuclear weapons and once one the U.S or Russia had them the other would be sure to develop them so I don't really understand how an argument could be made that dropping the bombs changed that equation. I doubt Russia would have seen us as less of a threat once we had the bomb just because we didnt use it. There is nothing magical about nuclear weapons. They are bombs and it is certainly possible to do similar damage with conventional weapons if sufficient ordinance is used. A kiloton is a kiloton whether its a plutonium based weapon or one based on simple exothermic reactions. You may want to read about Dresden to familiarize yourself with the amount of death and destruction we were able to deliver with conventional weapons. It was less than that caused in Nagasaki but only by a factor of two. Certainly not night and day.
2 - The same way I would justify every other lost life in war, I wouldn't. Why were we fighting them anyway? Because they made us mad? That's childish. Because we felt we had some better way of telling them how to run their country? Because we are fascists? You ask me to choose between big bombs and small bombs, how about none?Are we talking about the same war??? The one in which the Japanese launched a surprise attack on us killing thousands when we had not attacked anyone? The same war where Japan and its Axis allies (Which actually were admittedly fascists) bent on world domination invaded peaceful countries killing millions of innocents? You've really lost me here. You can debate our involvement in a lot of the wars we've had over the years but not WWII. We quite literally helped save the world from true evil.
Are we talking about the same war??? The one in which the Japanese launched a surprise attack on us killing thousands when we had not attacked anyone? The same war where Japan and its Axis allies (Which actually were admittedly fascists) bent on world domination invaded peaceful countries killing millions of innocents? You've really lost me here. You can debate our involvement in a lot of the wars we've had over the years but not WWII. We quite literally helped save the world from true evil.And after Pearl Harbor were absolutely no threat to our shores. There are a lot of people bent on world domination, it doesn't mean they are capable of pulling it off.
Are we talking about the same war??? The one in which the Japanese launched a surprise attack on us killing thousands when we had not attacked anyone? The same war where Japan and its Axis allies (Which actually were admittedly fascists) bent on world domination invaded peaceful countries killing millions of innocents? You've really lost me here. You can debate our involvement in a lot of the wars we've had over the years but not WWII. We quite literally helped save the world from true evil.And after Pearl Harbor were absolutely no threat to our shores. There are a lot of people bent on world domination, it doesn't mean they are capable of pulling it off. I think you need to read a history book. Japan was allied with Germany which was rolling over Europe and killing millions in concentrations camps while Japan itself had invaded China, Korea, and most of South East Asia killing millions, torturing others, enslaving men and women along the way and then bombing us. No one in their right mind would suggest that after Pearl Harbor we should have just licked our wounds and left the rest of the world to fight off what was probably the greatest threat to humanity in the history of the planet?
I think you need to read a history book. Japan was allied with Germany which was rolling over Europe and killing millions in concentrations camps while Japan itself had invaded China, Korea, and most of South East Asia killing millions, torturing others, enslaving men and women along the way and then bombing us. No one in their right mind would suggest that after Pearl Harbor we should have just licked our wounds and left the rest of the world to fight off what was probably the greatest threat to humanity in the history of the planet?Let's see, hmmm, what other country invaded countries all over the world, still has bases in those countries, interned their own citizens in camps, tortured and bombed innocent people? Just what is your criteria for "right mind"?
I think you need to read a history book. Japan was allied with Germany which was rolling over Europe and killing millions in concentrations camps while Japan itself had invaded China, Korea, and most of South East Asia killing millions, torturing others, enslaving men and women along the way and then bombing us. No one in their right mind would suggest that after Pearl Harbor we should have just licked our wounds and left the rest of the world to fight off what was probably the greatest threat to humanity in the history of the planet?Let's see, hmmm, what other country invaded countries all over the world, still has bases in those countries, interned their own citizens in camps, tortured and bombed innocent people? Just what is your criteria for "right mind"? If you want to discuss other wars and other actions we can do that but the focus of this discussion is what happened in WWII. You can't judge the actions of American leaders in 1945 based on the actions of a different set of American leaders 30 or 40 or 60 years later. If that were the case we would have to attack Japan and Germany today for what they did in the 40's or better yet, we should judge everyones actions today based on events in the future that none of us are aware of yet.
So the ends justify the means? Anyone who really wants to stop a war should use nuclear weapons. LoisThat is a gross overgeneralization and also an example of black and white thinking, in the context of this discussion.
...Of course, I used "followed by" because we don't really know what would have happened otherwise. Your conjecture is that the Emperor and the loyalist faction would have immediately over-ridden the military faction that would not abide surrender, if we had only guaranteed the Emperor could stay in power. If we are speculating, consider this, even after both A-bombs, and Russia then declaring war on Japan, a die-hard military faction attempted a coup d'état of the Emperor. If the war had lingered on the military faction may have been successful in overthrowing or controlling Hirohito's actions. Or let's even go with your conjecture that Hirohito would have immediately and successfully surrendered if he had been guaranteed to remain in power. What would have been the political repercussions in Japan, for McArthur, in trying to implement the control necessary, to govern and re-build Japan? We don't know. What we do know is that with an unconditional surrender, Japan was controlled and successfully rebuilt.The dropping of the A-bombs, were followed by the unconditional surrender of the last Axis power and the end of WWII.Yep. But 'followed by' does not mean 'caused by'. I referred to Röling who has read the minutes of the last cabinet meeting when for capitulation was decided: the main point was the position of the Emperor, not the A-bombs...
I think you need to read a history book. Japan was allied with Germany which was rolling over Europe and killing millions in concentrations camps while Japan itself had invaded China, Korea, and most of South East Asia killing millions, torturing others, enslaving men and women along the way and then bombing us. No one in their right mind would suggest that after Pearl Harbor we should have just licked our wounds and left the rest of the world to fight off what was probably the greatest threat to humanity in the history of the planet?Let's see, hmmm, what other country invaded countries all over the world, still has bases in those countries, interned their own citizens in camps, tortured and bombed innocent people? Just what is your criteria for "right mind"? If you want to discuss other wars and other actions we can do that but the focus of this discussion is what happened in WWII. You can't judge the actions of American leaders in 1945 based on the actions of a different set of American leaders 30 or 40 or 60 years later. If that were the case we would have to attack Japan and Germany today for what they did in the 40's or better yet, we should judge everyones actions today based on events in the future that none of us are aware of yet. Off the rails here. We have been invading other countries and setting up bases since 1776. We interned Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. You can believe whatever you want about torture being some isolated incidents if it makes you sleep better. And you pretty much can't drop a bomb without killing innocents, it's practically the definition of bomb.
I think you need to read a history book. Japan was allied with Germany which was rolling over Europe and killing millions in concentrations camps while Japan itself had invaded China, Korea, and most of South East Asia killing millions, torturing others, enslaving men and women along the way and then bombing us. No one in their right mind would suggest that after Pearl Harbor we should have just licked our wounds and left the rest of the world to fight off what was probably the greatest threat to humanity in the history of the planet?There's a lot of ifs historically Mac but you're absolutely right about "fortress America" and the concept of "America First" movement that would have left only England, The Soviet Union and a fractured China to fight the Axis powers. Historians speculate that if we hadn't provided military aid to Britain, it would have been starved out of the war by the U-boat blockade or eventually successfully invaded by the Nazis. With Britain out and America refusing to intervene Hitler would have gotten his wish of total hegemony over Europe and a prolonged war against the Soviets that may have gone on for years and resulted in the economic collapse of and fracturing of the Soviet empire. Meantime the Germans would have perfected their own bomb (which they had been working on since 42') and would undoubtedly have used it as a deterrent against any power that chose to oppose them, and that of course meant America. They were in fact creating a long range bomber nicknamed "The New Yorker" to deliver a bombing attack against us. In the Pacific the Japanese also wanted hegemony over ALL of Asia and were attempting to create what they called the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". They had no intentions of actually invading the U.S. Proper But definitely wanted the Hawaiian Islands which they had longed for since the turn of the Century. The only actual U.S. Home Territory they actually invaded were two islands in the Aleutians in order to control the area nearest their home islands. Meantime inside the evil empires MILLIONS of civilians were being tortured enslaved and systematically killed. Without U.S. Intervention with men, materiel and supplies these atrocities would have continued for years. They had to be stopped for humanity's sake and as I mentioned before, Truman saw the bombs as military weapons to do just that. And it did. Had we perfected the bomb earlier it would undoubtedly have been used against the Nazis. It was discussed by the Roosevelt admin. Once again, this isn't meant to absolve the American Government's past "sins" of territorial expansion and aggression but to show the necessity of our actions in WW II. Ultimately, nations act in their own best interest. Personally, like Lincoln and Thoreau I would have opposed the War against Mexico as naked aggression on our part. I'm not an expansionist but hey, if I lived during that time I might have thought otherwise. I would like to think that I wouldn't however. There were Kentuckians who opposed the War then, not many but they were vocal. Cap't Jack
Off the rails here. We have been invading other countries and setting up bases since 1776. We interned Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. You can believe whatever you want about torture being some isolated incidents if it makes you sleep better. And you pretty much can't drop a bomb without killing innocents, it's practically the definition of bomb.You seem to be of the mind that if a country or some of its actors did something wrong at one point in time than all actions by future or past representatives of that government are by default wrong. To believe that to the extent that you would consider our actions after Pearl Harbor as unjustified or immoral (even those having nothing to do with nuclear weapons) is to stretch credulity to the limit and beyond. If that were true than the actions of every individual and every government throughout history are immoral.
Hi TVA,
Thanks for your extended reaction.
My points about the A-bombs boil down to two points:
- Do we know from the decision making of the Japanese government know that the A-bombs were necessary to capitulate? Röling’s reading of the minutes suggest something different.
- Did the USA government really thought the A-bombs were the best way to end the war ASAP? Not trying things before that they could have done suggests something different.
Thanks for the link, I had no time to read it carefully, but the text seems to confirm my point. But if I fly over the main points, which exactly map my two questions, then it really seems so:
To 1.
Ending the war at the earliest possible moment
To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project
To impress the Soviets
A lack of incentives not to use the bomb
Responding to Pearl Harbor
To 2.
Alternatives:
Intensifying conventional bombing and the naval blockade
Allowing the Japanese to retain the Emperor
Waiting for the Soviet Union to enter the war
Your exposé about revisionism was very clear, thank you. Especialy the point that revisionists look for conformation of preconceptions should be a pretty easy mark for distinguishing ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ revisionism. Röling was of course way too early to be a revisionist. (If you have Windows, then try ALT-148, use the numeric keypad).
One remark about how far the Germans were with the development of the A-bomb:
This is the experimental reactor of the Germans, as found when the Americans arrived in Haigerloch. The Germans had still a very long way to go… But that might be hindsight. Obvious there was a big misunderstanding between Niels Bohr and Weiner Heisberg, from which Bohr was convinced that the Nazis were working very hard on the A-bomb.
Hans Bethe: The German Uranium Project
You seem to be of the mind that if a country or some of its actors did something wrong at one point in time than all actions by future or past representatives of that government are by default wrong. To believe that to the extent that you would consider our actions after Pearl Harbor as unjustified or immoral (even those having nothing to do with nuclear weapons) is to stretch credulity to the limit and beyond. If that were true than the actions of every individual and every government throughout history are immoral.You seem to be of the mindset that whatever your country does is good. I carefully referred only to things within the same time reference that you did and generalized about the US just like you generalized about Japan. I didn't say we should not have gone to war with Japan, I focused merely on the A-bomb decision. You referred to intentions and methods used by Japan for justification and I pointed out that we were doing the same crap. By your standard, the very next country to develop a bomb should have immediately dropped it on us. That would have prevented us from escalating the Cold War wouldn't it? Why didn't we choose a military target? Some island near Japan with nothing but bases on it? Or why not an uninhabited one? Then gave them two days to surrender or THEN we'd hit the mainland?
Hi TVA, Thanks for your extended reaction. My points about the A-bombs boil down to two points: 1. Do we know from the decision making of the Japanese government know that the A-bombs were necessary to capitulate? Röling's reading of the minutes suggest something different. 2. Did the USA government really thought the A-bombs were the best way to end the war ASAP? Not trying things before that they could have done suggests something different. Thanks for the link, I had no time to read it carefully, but the text seems to confirm my point. But if I fly over the main points, which exactly map my two questions, then it really seems so: To 1. Ending the war at the earliest possible moment To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project To impress the Soviets A lack of incentives not to use the bomb Responding to Pearl Harbor To 2. Alternatives: Intensifying conventional bombing and the naval blockade Allowing the Japanese to retain the Emperor Waiting for the Soviet Union to enter the war Your exposé about revisionism was very clear, thank you. Especialy the point that revisionists look for conformation of preconceptions should be a pretty easy mark for distinguishing 'positive' and 'negative' revisionism. Röling was of course way too early to be a revisionist. (If you have Windows, then try ALT-148, use the numeric keypad). One remark about how far the Germans were with the development of the A-bomb:It seems to me that what your argument boils down to (regardless of the multiple factors that motivated the use of the A bombs), is that alternative actions would have been preferable, (i.e., would have lead to a more desirable outcome). As I have said, the outcome was Japan did capitulate, and was effectively taken over and rebuilt. The downside was the destruction of lives and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The alternative of continuing the campaign of massive fire bombing of cities and other "conventional" warfare methods would likely have taken longer, and destroyed as many lives and caused as much devastation, perhaps more. Who can say? The alternative of waiting for the Soviets to enter the war? They did. But only after the 2nd A-bomb. The alternative of announcing in advance that the Emperor would be retained? Not a good idea, as I have eluded to in previous posts.This is the experimental reactor of the Germans, as found when the Americans arrived in Haigerloch. The Germans had still a very long way to go... But that might be hindsight. Obvious there was a big misunderstanding between Niels Bohr and Weiner Heisberg, from which Bohr was convinced that the Nazis were working very hard on the A-bomb. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/Bethe.html