Ultimately the Japanese submitted to unconditional surrender without further actions by the Allies, although SCAP wisely chose to allow the Emperor to remain in place, albeit in a limited and non-divine role.The more important Allied objectives of unconditional surrender were the unrestricted occupation of Japanese territory, total authority in the governing of Japan, dismantlement of Japan's military and military-industrial complex ("demobilization"), a restructuring of Japanese society ("demilitarization"), and Allied-run war crimes trials--in effect doing to Japan what was being done to Germany. Abandoning these goals would mean Japan would not suffer the same consequences as Germany. Truman's consciousness of the political side to this issue was indicated in his meeting with his military advisers on 18 June, in which he said that he was deliberately leaving the door open to a modification of the surrender terms but that the initiative would have to come from Congress.
Achieving the surrender and unrestricted occupation of the entire national territory of an opponent steeped in a warrior tradition and a history as a great power, without having captured any portion of that territory, posed an extraordinary challenge. It had not been achieved in Germany without invasion:
The historical record shows that after the bomb was dropped, the Japanese civilian leadership was willing to settle for only one concession by Japan's conquerors--the Emperor's continuity.
The Japanese military, however, held out on the very issues that defined the Allies' unconditional position, insisting that there be no security occupation of Japan; that disarmament and demobilization be left in Japanese hands; and that war criminals be tried by Japanese tribunals.
Inasmuch as none of these concessions had been granted to Germany, Allied leaders doubtless would have had great difficulty in gaining political support at home for granting any of them to Japan.
Whether the Allies' demands could be achieved without capturing any part of the Japanese homeland was really what the debate between invasion and bomb-and-blockade was all about. By early August the casualty costs of an invasion would have added credibility to the case for bomb-and-blockade. That strategy's downside was time: how much destruction had to be imposed, and for how long, and how many more thousands of Japanese had to be killed by bombing or starvation to achieve unconditional surrender?
Why did we drop the bomb on Japan? Avert invasion casualties, leverage against the Soviets, and an expedient end to the war. Without the bomb we may or may not have gotten the Japanese to accept the terms we wanted.What the evidence does indicate is that the view of the bomb as a potential way to end the war quickly--in the hope of (1) avoiding the need for an invasion with resulting casualties that by any standard would be of intimidating proportions, (2) minimizing the USSR's postwar leverage, and (3) not having to confront debate over concessions on the terms of unconditional surrender--was the driving force in the minds of the US leadership team before Potsdam, and before the acquisition of intelligence showing much-larger-than-expected Japanese forces on Kyushu. Nonetheless, it is certainly plausible that the buildup disclosed by early August reinforced the belief that the decision to use the bomb was the path of least resistance. (Ibid.
Or ask a nazi if he cares about a jew. His answer will show his hate towards jews, and can not be interpreted as a moral guidline.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>the second bomb may have been excessive, but hey...can you really argue with results. ask a marine that served in okinawa and see if they care abotu the bomb, or ask a survivor of pearl harbor...
for that matter, ask any korean if they care about what happened to japan after the centuries of oppression they felt from them. what goes around, comes around...we just happen to be better...</STRONG>
Yes, I understand that the population of Song My felt very free and very saved after making contact with american soldiers.Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>OK, now you're just being ridiculous. You are comparing the epitomy of evil (a Nazi) and their victims (Jews) with the saviours of the free world (Marines) and evil aggressors (Japan).</STRONG>
Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>Or ask a nazi if he cares about a jew. His answer will show his hate towards jews, and can not be interpreted as a moral guidline.
For the "what goes around coms around" thing, do you have the same views regarding WTC?</STRONG>
I don't see, Gruntboy, where is the ridiculous part of Dottie post.Gruntboy:
OK, now you're just being ridiculous. You are comparing the epitomy of evil (a Nazi) and their victims (Jews) with the saviours of the free world (Marines) and evil aggressors (Japan).
HighLordDave:
(snip)We had spent a lot of money on the Manhattan Project and its oversight people wanted to use their new toy. (snip)
HighLordDave:
(snip)We could kill them by the tens of thousands and never give them the chance to shoot back. Instead of honourable warriors deaths, the Japanese would be exterminated by our doomsday weapons.(snip)
Celegorm Valkyrre:
(snip)if the US military had not dropped the bombs we would've been forced to invaid ala euro-style against the bulk of the jap military based on the main island. (Snip)
HighLordDave:
(snip)We in the United States have never cared about sparing civilians and non-military targets except as a PR tool. What's the difference between firebombing Kyoto or Dresden or dropping a nuclear weapon on the same city? The level of destruction is the same. (snip)
Gruntboy:
(snip)NO. We make anyone who ever wants to contemplate commiting such attrocities look at what we did to the Terrorists and make them never think of doing it again. Deterrence. Peace through superior firepower. (Snip)
Celegorm Valkyrre:
(snip)at that poitn in the war it was all about saving US lives, that of the japanese was secondary, although a consideration. (snip)
HighLordDave:
(snip)the Japanese attacked us in a pre-emptive strike. Given that the Japanese had a long history of not surrendering when they had the chance, Truman did the right thing in deciding to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
(snip)
Happy Evil:
(snip)Saving American lives should have been priority number one.(snip)
Happy Evil:
(snip)Dropping the bomb saved American lives.
Keyword is American.
(snip)
See, The amouth of "We", "Our", "I", related to "American".Happy Evil:
(snip)In this case I only see Americans and Japanese. Not soldiers and civilians. Kill more Japanese and save Americans?? (snip)
This is for me?Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>The Free World that dictators, terrorists and other assorted scum have attempted to destroy from time to time. The one that millions of young men have had to spill their guts on Pacific islands they didn't even know existed for. Young men who died so people could be alive to say @$$hole things today.</STRONG>
Why do you think so?Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>Methinks Ivan is peering through spectacles of contempt for the US.
Blinding his objective eyes.</STRONG>
The unusual expression is my feeble attempt at being profound.Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>
"peering through spectacles of contempt..."
unusual expression, isn't it?
Maybe I'm. But I don't think so.
If you show me where is my fault, and my wrong seeing, I can change it.</STRONG>
Impossible, IMO. I've seen lots of forums around here recently that express the same desire: to hold impersonal, civil conversations/debates on sensitive and controversial issues, and every single one of them fails miserably every single time. Especially with the issue of the A-bomb, you simply cannot have a discussion on it without emotions and tempers flaring and even getting out of control. Especially with the recent terrorist attacks on American soil and their aftermath, namely the current military action in Afghanistan and the anthrax scare. There can be no question that the US is under attack, possibly from many quarters; and as a result, nerves are raw. People ARE going to get defensive. They're going to be defensive when anyone from anywhere, especially from a different country, criticizes any US action, past or present. People are just trying to hold it together at this point, which makes this time an extremely bad time for discussing this issue, or any other issue that opens itself to criticism of US policy. People will get upset. Especially if they lost, or nearly lost, someone in the attacks.Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Focus, by all means, on the subject at hand, and debate the dropping of the a-bomb; even take a trip through other historical events, if you'd like. But leave personalities out of it, and don't attack one another. This is a place to debate ideas--not the stupidity of individuals. I'd rather not close this topic off, since it really does bring out both passion and facts.</STRONG>
