Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
america had neither the human resources nor finances to invade japan.
it is impossible to use 2012 morality to assess a 1945 decision. retroactive application of law.
What about the folks in 1945 who morally objected to the use of atomic weapons in combat? Is that a "retroactive application of law"? (whatever that's supposed to mean)
The use of incendiary bombs on Japan both before and AFTER the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually killed much more Japanese than did the atomic bombs.
The use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was double-tap and the following napalm raid on Tokyo after the Japanese agreed to surrender was triple-tap.
See a book by John Dower entitled War Without Mercy.
World War II was a race war and in a race war, belligerent nations attempt to eradicate their enemies. The Japanese tried to do this to their enemies (British, Chinese, Aussies, Koreans, Vietnamese, French, Americans, etc.) and the U.S. tried to do it to the Japanese.
The final raid on Tokyo was on August 15th. The day the Japanese surrendered was August 15th. I'm thinking that, in the confusion of war, radio blackouts by bombing crews, etc., the word of the Japanese surrender might not have gotten through in time.
Further, given how the Japanese government was still deeply divided between factions wanting to continue the war and factions wanting to surrender, complete with armed camps beginning to exchange gunfire, Japanese surrender remained very much in doubt. In fact, I thing the final intrigues and death spasms of the Japanese would likely make an excellent novel.
I think people today don't have an idea of the mindset that took place during that time. We look at this today from an equal perspective. During the war it was them or us. The atrocities that took place also created the mood Americans felt. This quote from Truman is interesting. If you analyze each sentence, you get a feeling for why the bombs were dropped.
Having found the [atomic] bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.
He was referencing Americans, not Japanese. They were our enemy. The Japanese would have lost the war, but at what cost? Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, the Japan government was still split on surrender. The emperor had to cast the tie breaking vote. Looking back at Japanese war propaganda, citizens were preparing to fight to defend their homeland. There is no doubt that there would have been over a million war casualties by wars end.
The final raid on Tokyo was on August 15th. The day the Japanese surrendered was August 15th. I'm thinking that, in the confusion of war, radio blackouts by bombing crews, etc., the word of the Japanese surrender might not have gotten through in time.
Further, given how the Japanese government was still deeply divided between factions wanting to continue the war and factions wanting to surrender, complete with armed camps beginning to exchange gunfire, Japanese surrender remained very much in doubt. In fact, I thing the final intrigues and death spasms of the Japanese would likely make an excellent novel.
Dower demonstrates in his book that there was little confusion. His sources are U.S. Army Air Corps files -- most letters from Curtis LeMay to Truman and others -- that demostrates that the U.S. military wanted to "run-up the score" so to speak on the Japanese.
Dower demonstrates in his book that there was little confusion. His sources are U.S. Army Air Corps files -- most letters from Curtis LeMay to Truman and others -- that demostrates that the U.S. military wanted to "run-up the score" so to speak on the Japanese.
The war was over and the U.S. brass knew it.
Manchester in his book on MacArthur says quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, it was very much of a concern that the surrender was a ruse and that initial liaison parties of occupation troops feared a general massacre. And with good reason. There had already been shootouts between opposing factions of the Japanese military, and it was very much unclear who was in control.
Manchester in his book on MacArthur says quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, it was very much of a concern that the surrender was a ruse and that initial liaison parties of occupation troops feared a general massacre. And with good reason. There had already been shootouts between opposing factions of the Japanese military, and it was very much unclear who was in control.
First of all, I appreciate your response--providing me with another account by another author, William Manchester. I much more prefer to read responses like that rather than the "go suck it" responses so common on this forum when folks disagree with one another.
That being said, I don't think the "confusion of war principle" (for lack of a more precise way of putting it) mitigates Dower's contention that the U.S. unnecessarily "piled it on" the Japanese or "ran up the score." Furthermore, there's this whole business of the Soviets. I can't remember any specific historians here, but I've seen primary source documents on Truman's website (Harry S. Truman Library and Museum) in which he gloated over the atomic bomb, claiming something to the effect that Stalin would be shivering in his boots when "he sees Manhattan [fat man; little boy] rise" over Japan's cities. In short, quite a few historians argue that U.S. leaders/military brass knew the Japanese were defeated, and using atomic weapons and the subsequent firebombing of Tokyo were to scare the b'jesus out of the Soviets. It was done to show the Soviets that the U.S. had military primacy in Asia. This type of argument, if one accepts it, obliterates this notion that...well...maybe the Japanese could have held out because it renders the "confusion of war principle" irrelevant since the U.S. aims in bombing Japan were to emerge from the war not only victorious, but as the only postwar superpower. Truman, in his private correspondence in July and early August of '45 even stated that Japan's surrender was "inevitable" and he used language like "...when Japan surrenders..." or "...upon surrender..." -- all of which is not the language of a leadership that believed the war effort remained in doubt.
Manchester wrote a solid 1978 biography, there's no doubt about that. It was one of many historical arguments that Dower took on in his 1987 re-interpretation, War Without Mercy, and in my opinion, made a much better argument and presented a clearer case, using primary source evidence, that the U.S. attempted to annihilate the Japanese. The reason why was racism, and he documented in great detail how white supremacy motivated the conduct of the allies (and for each of the axis, their own racial ideology motivated their war conduct) in WWII. While his argument is persuasive, I don't think racism is the last word on why the U.S. used such firepower on the Japanese. It could be this mentality among us Americans that we overkill things and view war as some kind of game in which there are clear winners and losers like in a football game (and that's why I intentionally used the phrase "pile it on" etc. when discussing this). Once the U.S. became involved in an asymmetrical war like Vietnam or the GWOT, we generally don't view it in such "feel-good" terms like we do when talking about WWII.
Perhaps, when you get a chance, check out Dower's book. It's a quick read...I couldn't put it down.
Last edited by DiogenesofJackson; 01-12-2012 at 03:22 PM..
Reason: insert missing word
If the Japanese had the atomic bomb first, I think they would used it without hesitation.
I guess if the US had not had a shortage of bombs they could dropped one as a warning not in a city.
Declassified Manhattan Project files clearly show that military brass planned on using the atomic bomb in combat. There this adage that if a nation spends so much money and resources building a weapon, then it will definitely be used. Using that logic, I think you're correct. Although its a counterfactual, I do believe had Japan or Nazi Germany obtained the bomb first, they would have used it.
That being said, I don't think the "confusion of war principle" (for lack of a more precise way of putting it) mitigates Dower's contention that the U.S. unnecessarily "piled it on" the Japanese or "ran up the score." Furthermore, there's this whole business of the Soviets. I can't remember any specific historians here, but I've seen primary source documents on Truman's website (Harry S. Truman Library and Museum) in which he gloated over the atomic bomb, claiming something to the effect that Stalin would be shivering in his boots when "he sees Manhattan [fat man; little boy] rise" over Japan's cities.
The only source to the above quote you are attributing to Truman is from the city-data forum in an obscure thread, no other site shows that he showed anything of the sort, yet the quote is attributed to his diary at Potsdam. It's known that Truman took a very different view of Stalin and the Soviets then did FDR and while he certainly may have said something or wrote in his diary something to that effect; I find it hard to believe based on the historic record of the Potsdam conference that the bomb was only used to "terrify the Soviets". The US tested the bomb on July 16th, the US and Britain agreed it would be used on the 21st. They told Stalin about it on the 25th and he agreed.
What everyone in the room was surprised to see was how calmly and non-chalant Stalin reacted to the news. The truth is that Stalin knew about the atomic bombs before Truman ever did through his spy network. Everyone at Potsdam realized that the Soviets were already in on the secret. There was nothing to "prove" to them about its power and capabilites.
Quote:
In short, quite a few historians argue that U.S. leaders/military brass knew the Japanese were defeated, and using atomic weapons and the subsequent firebombing of Tokyo were to scare the b'jesus out of the Soviets. It was done to show the Soviets that the U.S. had military primacy in Asia.
Think about this for a moment. Do you honestly think that some firebombings and atomic bombs (that they already knew existed beforehand) were really going to "scare the b'jesus" out of the same people who had just fought the bloodiest, cruelest war this planet has ever seen with the Germans? Do you think the people who lived through Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were really scared of US airpower?
The Soviets took pretty much everything they wanted to in Asia, only stopping when US ground forces arrived to check their advance. Read about why the Korean peninsula ended up divided. The Soviets weren't scared of the Americans, but they weren't going to start another war either.
Quote:
This type of argument, if one accepts it, obliterates this notion that...well...maybe the Japanese could have held out because it renders the "confusion of war principle" irrelevant since the U.S. aims in bombing Japan were to emerge from the war not only victorious, but as the only postwar superpower. Truman, in his private correspondence in July and early August of '45 even stated that Japan's surrender was "inevitable" and he used language like "...when Japan surrenders..." or "...upon surrender..." -- all of which is not the language of a leadership that believed the war effort remained in doubt.
Everyone knew that the Japanese surrender was inevitable, their defeat had been assured as early as 1943, hence the words in his correspondence. The question remained as to when the Japanese would realize the same. There is no question the Japanese were beaten, but I don't think that realization necessarily proves anything.
Quote:
Manchester wrote a solid 1978 biography, there's no doubt about that. It was one of many historical arguments that Dower took on in his 1987 re-interpretation, War Without Mercy, and in my opinion, made a much better argument and presented a clearer case, using primary source evidence, that the U.S. attempted to annihilate the Japanese. The reason why was racism, and he documented in great detail how white supremacy motivated the conduct of the allies (and for each of the axis, their own racial ideology motivated their war conduct) in WWII. While his argument is persuasive, I don't think racism is the last word on why the U.S. used such firepower on the Japanese. It could be this mentality among us Americans that we overkill things and view war as some kind of game in which there are clear winners and losers like in a football game (and that's why I intentionally used the phrase "pile it on" etc. when discussing this).
I think Max Hastings gave the best counter to Dower's assertions about the role of race in the war in his book Retribution:
Quote:
"The American historian John Dower explains Western attitudes in racist terms. U.S. Admiral William Halsey set the tone after Pearl Harbor, asserting that when the war was over, 'Japanese will be spoken only in hell.'" "... But those who argue that the alien appearance and culture of the Japanese generated unique hatred and savagery seem to give insignificant weight to the fact that the Japanese initiated and institutionalized barbarism towards both civilians and prisoners... Tokyo's forces committed systemic brutalities against Allied prisoners and civilians... long before the first Allied atrocity against any Japanese is recorded... It may be true that Japanese physiognomy lent itself to Anglo-Saxon caricature. But it seems mistaken to argue that - for instance - Americans felt free to incinerate Japanese, and finally drop atom bombs upon them, only because they were Asians."
The problem I have with Dowers book which was written early in his career and does not have the same level of polish and logic that his later works do; is that he assigns all reason and cause to the issue of racism. I think it is a ludicrous statement, as Hastings says, to assume that we firebombed and nuked the Japanese because they were Asian. Was there some "retribution" involved, a kick to the face of someone on the ground who had severely injured you before they fell? That I can accept given the history of the conflict, but to say it was motivated solely by racism is something I don't believe.
You've given me much to think about. And in spirit, I too agree with your analysis of Dower's work that his later books and articles have much more polish in reasoning. And as I stated in my lengthy earlier post, I don't think racism was the only cause of the American/Axis conduct in the war--it could be attributed to other things. But you do have to admit that most Americans of the WWII generation harbored racist attitudes, especially given that African Americans could not vote and served in a segregated military (although the exigencies of wartime made military segregation uneven from location to location -- it was much more austere at southern bases than it was overseas or on naval vessels).
One thing that demonstrates Americans' racism of that generation was their obsession with one's race/ethnicity. I know it's only anecdotal, but everytime I talk to my war veteran grandfather, he seems obsessed with people's last names. He says "Jefferson" or a "Jackson" is a "black last name" and anything "-gold" or "-stein" is "obviously a Jew." I ask him why it matters and he says "it just does."
Not only that, but quoted below are statements from Truman's Potsdam Diary. First of all, you were right, I got the quote wrong. But I think the gist of what I said about the quote -- that Truman and the Americans attempted to scare the Soviets or at the very least, point out to them that they had military supremacy in Asia -- was a factor that played into Truman's decision to use not only one atomic weapon, but two, and then for the Air Corps' decision to follow it all up with a firebombing raid on Tokyo. (you were also correct in saying that Stalin knew of the bomb and acted uninterested or unsurprised to know of it).
Notice the obfuscation in Truman's diary entries, claiming that they'd choose military cities--but incendiary devices were designed to inflame Japan's wooden cities--military production sites and residential areas as well. The U.S. military used so much firepower on Japan during the war and in its last year that one has to conclude that the Americans and allied bombing was an attempt to kill as many possible Japanese as possible. Even Truman claims the Japanese might be "savages" in his diary entries--a common belief at the time among Americans and a theme taken up by propagandist Frank Capra in his "Why We Fight" series. As Dower explains, the Germans and the Italians (also a bunch of racists) had mostly been duped by their illegal and megalomaniac leaders. Whereas the Japanese were all "savages." Hence, racism must play some part in Americans' attitudes at this time -- not all Americans, mind you, but probably most Americans. (Consider as well that the U.S. interned 2nd and 3rd generation Japanese-American citizens and I think it was Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who wrote a scathing dissent of one citizen's challenge of internment and property forfeiture -- even for the U.S. to take citizens property and to place them camps suggests very strongly that the Japanese were a much different kind of enemy than German-Americans or Italian-Americans).
Truman even claims that the Japanese were merciless, savage, cruel, etc. Merciless is something that piques my interest in a document like this because this was written long after many American and other allied air raids on Japan had decimated their cities -- all of which was followed up by not one but two atomic bombs.
Again, I reiterate, it was overkill that probably reflected Americans' racist attitudes, sense of revenge, or at the very least their impatience.
Quote:
July 17
Just spent a couple of hours with Stalin....
Promptly a few minutes before twelve I looked up from the desk and there stood Stalin in the doorway. I got to my feet and advanced to meet him. He put out his hand and smiled. I did the same, we shook, I greeted Molotov and the interpreter, and we sat down.
After the usual polite remarks we got down to business. I told Stalin that I am no diplomat but usually said yes and no to questions after hearing all the argument. It pleased him. I asked him if he had the agenda for the meeting. He said he had and that he had some more questions to present. I told him to fire away. He did and it is dynamite-but I have some dynamite too which I am not exploding now. He wants to fire Franco, to which I wouldn't object, and divide up the Italian colonies and other mandates, some no doubt that the British have....
170 July 18
Went to lunch with EM. at 1:30, walked around to British headquarters. Met at the gate by Mr. Churchill. Guard of honor drawn up. Fine body of men—Scottish
Guards. Band played "Star Spangled Banner." Inspected guard and went in for lunch.
P.M. and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told F.M. of telegram from *** emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time. [emphasis added]
Stalin's luncheon was a most satisfactory meeting. I invited him to come to the
U.S. Told him I'd send the battleship Missouri for him if he'd come. He said he
wanted to cooperate with U.S. in peace as we had cooperated in war, but it would be harder. Said he was grossly misunderstood in U.S. and I was misunderstood in
Russia. I told him that we each could help to remedy that situation in our home countries and that I intended to try with all I had to do my part at home. He gave me a most cordial smile and said he would do as much in Russia.
We then went to the conference and it was my job to present the ministers'
proposed agenda. There were three proposals and I banged them through in short order, much to the surprise of Mr. Churchill. Stalin was very much pleased. Churchill was too, after he had recovered. I'm not going to stay around this terrible place all summer just to listen to speeches. I'll go home to the Senate for that.
July 25
We met at 11 :00 a.m. today. That is, Stalin, Churchill, and the U.S. president. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbatten and General Marshall before that. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark.
Anyway we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling-to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower sixty feet high, created a crater six feet deep and twelve hundred feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower a half mile away, and knocked men down ten thousand yards away. The explosion was visible for more than two hundred miles and audible for forty miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10. I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quotes from Truman's Potsdam Diary
