CDZ Hiroshima Debate: The End of the Age of Reason?

[M14 Shooter]

Hon, I'm a woman

Ah. That explains it.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

None of this refutes anything I said - the USSBS conclusion was post-facto, and Ike had noting to do with planning the war in the Pacific.

You're arguing form hindsight. Pretty easy to do.

 

[Disir]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That may be but Japan was not going to get a conditional surrender which is what they were trying to negotiate atomic bomb or not their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war assured that.

As I stated before-----there has never been an unconditional surrender. Ever.

That is debatable but it does not change the fact Japan's actions during war were going to prevent them from getting any of the conditions they wanted for their surrender. That left two choices use the bombs to try and force there surrender or invade Japan it's self if your goal was to try and end the war and save American lives you use the bombs. As I pointed out already even after both bombs were used there was still those in Japan's military that did not want to surrender and even tried to prevent it by trying to overthrow the Emperor.

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.
The people were starving and there was no viable means for a comeback.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.

What terms did we grant to Nazi Germany, rather than their unconditional surrender?

 

[Disir]

Hon, I'm a woman

Ah. That explains it.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

None of this refutes anything I said - the USSBS conclusion was post-facto, and Ike had noting to do with planning the war in the Pacific.

You're arguing form hindsight. Pretty easy to do.

You're ignoring all other voices. Pretty easy to do.

My being female simply means that you sound like a dork when you called me son. There is no other 'splainin'.

 

[blackhawk]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That may be but Japan was not going to get a conditional surrender which is what they were trying to negotiate atomic bomb or not their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war assured that.

As I stated before-----there has never been an unconditional surrender. Ever.

That is debatable but it does not change the fact Japan's actions during war were going to prevent them from getting any of the conditions they wanted for their surrender. That left two choices use the bombs to try and force there surrender or invade Japan it's self if your goal was to try and end the war and save American lives you use the bombs. As I pointed out already even after both bombs were used there was still those in Japan's military that did not want to surrender and even tried to prevent it by trying to overthrow the Emperor.

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.
The people were starving and there was no viable means for a comeback.

You are claiming there never has been and never will be an unconditional surrender unless you are an immortal who has been walking the earth since the beginning of the human races existence then your claim has no merit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hon, I'm a woman

Ah. That explains it.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

None of this refutes anything I said - the USSBS conclusion was post-facto, and Ike had noting to do with planning the war in the Pacific.
You're arguing form hindsight. Pretty easy to do.

You're ignoring all other voices.

So are you.
The position that the Allied command had reason to know or believe that Japan would surrender before the Allied invasion has no basis in fact.

My being female simply means that you sound like a dork when you called me son.

It also means your cognitive process doesn't fully rely on reason. That's the explanation I mentioned..

 

[Disir]

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.

What terms did we grant to Nazi Germany, rather than their unconditional surrender?

Initially it was simply military unconditional surrender. Not civilian government. That got tricky. That said we were still in an official state of war for legal reasons.

 

[jwoodie]

Let's get back to reality: Is anyone claiming that dropping 10,000 tons of TNT on Hiroshima would have resulted in fewer casualties?

 

[Disir]

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That may be but Japan was not going to get a conditional surrender which is what they were trying to negotiate atomic bomb or not their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war assured that.

As I stated before-----there has never been an unconditional surrender. Ever.

That is debatable but it does not change the fact Japan's actions during war were going to prevent them from getting any of the conditions they wanted for their surrender. That left two choices use the bombs to try and force there surrender or invade Japan it's self if your goal was to try and end the war and save American lives you use the bombs. As I pointed out already even after both bombs were used there was still those in Japan's military that did not want to surrender and even tried to prevent it by trying to overthrow the Emperor.

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.
The people were starving and there was no viable means for a comeback.

You are claiming there never has been and never will be an unconditional surrender unless you are an immortal who has been walking the earth since the beginning of the human races existence then your claim has no merit.

The US has never used an unconditional surrender. Post conflict is just as important and is by and large already decided prior to war. The name of the game is to maintain peace--unless you happen to profit off the instability created via proxy wars.

You can't have that for very long if you are dealing with unconditional surrender. You have just laid the ground work for the next war.

 

[Disir]

Hon, I'm a woman

Ah. That explains it.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

None of this refutes anything I said - the USSBS conclusion was post-facto, and Ike had noting to do with planning the war in the Pacific.
You're arguing form hindsight. Pretty easy to do.

You're ignoring all other voices.

So are you.
The position that the Allied command had reason to know or believe that Japan would surrender before the Allied invasion has no basis in fact.

My being female simply means that you sound like a dork when you called me son.

It also means your cognitive process doesn't fully rely on reason. That's the explanation I mentioned..

They absolutely did know. Japan made three attempts. THREE. And the plan NOT to use those bombs was in effect until the noob, Truman got in there and in six weeks the game plan changed.

My cognitive process can become analytical very quickly.

 

[Disir]

Hahaha! Japan kept the emperor, amiright?

 

[blackhawk]

Hahaha! Japan kept the emperor, amiright?

Yes you are and he was simply a figurehead and MacArthur was the one in control post war.

 

[jwoodie]

Hahaha! Japan kept the emperor, amiright?

What is the significance of whatever point you are trying to make?

 

[Disir]

Hahaha! Japan kept the emperor, amiright?

What is the significance of whatever point you are trying to make?

It still wasn't an unconditional surrender.

 

[Unkotare]

We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

Well, a negotiated settlement was their aim from the get-go. (That is why they bombed Pearl Harbor.) Nothing less than complete occupation (a la Germany) would have replaced their militaristic culture.

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives Washington s Blog

It was unnecessary and it was known at the time. There is no justification. There is more at the link.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That is a LIE. Japan ONLY offered a Ceasefire with return to the November 1941 start lines and no concessions on China. This lie is the reason stupid people believe this ignorant tripe about no need for the bombs. Hell after 2 bombs the Ruling Japanese Government STILL refused to surrender. It took the intervention of the Emperor and even then the Army attempted a Coup to stop even HIM.

 

[Unkotare]

Simply declaring "there is no rational argument" is itself illogical, of course.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Even if this is correct - hindsight is 20/20, son.

In war, you do all you can to end is as quickly as you can, because to do so is to save lives; the nuclear strikes saved lives.

First off---I am not your son. Secondly, that wasn't hindsight. It was known at the time that it was unnecessary. Those aren't my words.

Another LIE, Japan never offered to surrender. They offered to return to their 1941 start lines and keep everything in China.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hon, I'm a woman

Ah. That explains it.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

None of this refutes anything I said - the USSBS conclusion was post-facto, and Ike had noting to do with planning the war in the Pacific.
You're arguing form hindsight. Pretty easy to do.

You're ignoring all other voices.

So are you.
The position that the Allied command had reason to know or believe that Japan would surrender before the Allied invasion has no basis in fact.

My being female simply means that you sound like a dork when you called me son.

It also means your cognitive process doesn't fully rely on reason. That's the explanation I mentioned..

They absolutely did know. Japan made three attempts. THREE. And the plan NOT to use those bombs was in effect until the noob, Truman got in there and in six weeks the game plan changed.

My cognitive process can become analytical very quickly.

Japan NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire, a return to 1941 start lines and no concessions in China. They offered that to the Soviets to tell the US and they offered that after the first bomb was dropped. AT NO TIME did the Government of Japan, run by the Army offer to surrender. And in fact after the second atomic bomb the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender and then the Army tried a coup to prevent that.

 

[Disir]

Hon, I'm a woman

Ah. That explains it.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

None of this refutes anything I said - the USSBS conclusion was post-facto, and Ike had noting to do with planning the war in the Pacific.
You're arguing form hindsight. Pretty easy to do.

You're ignoring all other voices.

So are you.
The position that the Allied command had reason to know or believe that Japan would surrender before the Allied invasion has no basis in fact.

My being female simply means that you sound like a dork when you called me son.

It also means your cognitive process doesn't fully rely on reason. That's the explanation I mentioned..

They absolutely did know. Japan made three attempts. THREE. And the plan NOT to use those bombs was in effect until the noob, Truman got in there and in six weeks the game plan changed.

My cognitive process can become analytical very quickly.

Japan NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire, a return to 1941 start lines and no concessions in China. They offered that to the Soviets to tell the US and they offered that after the first bomb was dropped. AT NO TIME did the Government of Japan, run by the Army offer to surrender. And in fact after the second atomic bomb the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender and then the Army tried a coup to prevent that.

Japan Seeks Peace

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

A Secret Memorandum

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

• Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
• Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
• Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
• Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
• Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
• Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

Peace Overtures

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."

In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)
Was Hiroshima Necessary