My stupid question about ww2

[1031]

Eventually, yes. They were still a highly militarized country.

The British and the French "just let Hitler be" when he annexed Austria and the Sudetenland. How'd that work out for everyone?

So to be clear, you're comparing leaving the Nazis to grow before the war to leaving the Japanese to wither away after the major conflict?

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

So to be clear, you're comparing leaving the Nazis to grow before the war to leaving the Japanese to wither away after the major conflict?

You're wasting your time. She's a woman scorned so logic left her pea sized brain shortly after I took residence in it rent free.

Creepy eh?

Hi woman scorned!

 

[Yossarian]

"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 Tribuneand 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):"

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

Even IF it was mere retaliation. And these same arguments are made about Dresden, Germany. Are we really just ignoring here that the German aggressors are responsible for 11 million deaths, and the Japanese aggressors for 6 million deaths? Compared to a 200k from those bombs.

Compared to those numbers the bombs are a humane and mild punishment. Those milllions upon millions that died, did not have the luxury of dying unknowingly; they were tortured, executed after being marched through the muds, after having to dig their own graves. Gain a rational perspective here.

Again, the fire-bombings killed three times as much Japanese people. The H-bombs and the Russian evasion brought an end to this.

You have the right however, to be outraged about the things of your own chosings.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Even IF it was mere retaliation. And these same arguments are made about Dresden, Germany. Are we really just ignoring here that the German aggressors are responsible for 11 million deaths, and the Japanese agressors for 6 million deaths? Compared to a 200k from those bombs.

Compared to those numbers the bombs are a humane and mild punishment. Those milllions upon millions that died, did not have the luxury of dying unknowingly; they were turtured, executed after being marched through the muds, after having to dig their own graves. Gain a rational perspective here.

Again, the firebombings killed three times as much Japanese people. The h-bombs and the Russian evasion brought an end to this.

You have the right however, to be outraged about the things of your own chosings.

Okay my rational perspective is that bombing 200k+ civilians who had nothing to do with the deaths you posted earlier was fine.

Cool?

 

[Nemo?]

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

"Dances with white girls"

 

[Zeph]

Yes, Japan was ready to surrender under certain terms, and yes those certain terms were agreed to after the bombs were dropped, but there are certain mitigating reasons for those terms to have been acceptable after the bombs were dropped, but not before. Which is to say that the true devastation these weapons would wreak was not fully understood at this time, even by the people who created them, let alone the decision makers who signed off on their use. The blasts created in the tests were significantly larger than predicted, no one had real knowledge of radiation poisoning, and there is something to be said that they had only been tested.

What I mean by only been tested is that there was no real framework for people to understand these bombs. That framework has only come into place in the aftermath of their use on people. Think about how nukes are described to the layman, 5x the power of Hiroshima, 10x the power of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, etc. It is through their use that we have an understanding of how dreadful these weapons truly are, but before they were used in combat that framework for understanding them just didn't exist. It is only with hindsight and pictures of the devastation they wrought that it really hits home in the mind of the observer. Yes, firebombing caused more devastation and loss of life, but that was hundreds of planes dropping thousands of bombs, it just doesn't have the psychological impact that one bomb has. That said, it is a good point that total war had made this kind of devastation a legitimate tactic of war, both sides had shown a willingness to kill civilians to achieve their goals.

At various meetings throughout the war - Potsdam, Yalta, Tehran, being the major ones - it was agreed that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable means of surrender. This was for various reasons, appease the Soviets, ensure hegemony over Europe and the Pacific, previous experiences from WW1. FDR was the spearhead of this on the U.S. side, but how much he confided in his Vice President Truman about the reasons and framework behind this aren't particularly clear. What is clear is that once Truman became President he had not been fully briefed on every situation and was playing catch up in all manner of areas, but it was important for him to be seen as strong, in command, and have continuity with FDR's policies amongst the political elite, as an election was on the horizon.

In combination with this, it was becoming very clear to the Western Allies that the Soviets were going to become their fiercest competition in the post-war world. The Soviets were making it very clear that they were going to brook no interference from the allies within territories they controlled, as they had been given no say in how Italy was to be governed when it was liberated earlier in the war. At the last meeting, Potsdam, when it was still looking like Japan would be able to fight on for a significant time, Soviet support in the Pacific had been pursued and assurances achieved that they would switch attentions over to the Pacific theatre at the earliest opportunity.

So there was an impending red tide just starting to push into the Pacific, which the allies were realizing they don't actually want, as the Soviet Union with warm water ports in the Pacific could threaten U.S. hegemony of the area in the post-war era; A President that felt he need to be strong and decisive, but didn't really have as firm a grasp on all the information as his predecessor had; and a new weapon that no one fully understood yet.

Yes, Japan was ready to surrender, yes it could have been accepted, but agreements had been made between the allies that unconditional surrender was the only option. However, it isn't completely clear if Truman had been made aware of all the reasoning behind the need for unconditional surrender, but his need to be seen to have continuity with FDR would have played into his decision not to accept the surrender offered, but strive for FDR's previous goal. Concerns about the Soviets annexing territory, or even a divided Japan, much like Berlin, would have also played a role in Truman's decision to drop the bomb to expediate Japan into accepting unconditional surrender.

However, once it became clear that Japan would continue to ask for the exemption for the Emperor, and the true horror of these weapons being used was starting to be realised, the surrender was accepted. It saved lives, on both sides, as any invasion would have been a horrific loss of life, but I believe it also saved many future lives, by showing the world the true power of these weapons when their use was confined to a unilateral engagement. Had the bombs not been dropped then and created the framework for how they would be regarded in the future, their use may have first been in a conflict in which both sides could bring them to bear, possibly legitimising their use as tactical warheads, or even worse ending in a full scale nuclear conflict.

That's what I can remember from my paper I wrote on it 6 years or so ago, I am likely forgetting things, mixing up a few things here and there, but generally I'll stand by it.

 

[Leigh]

Japan was broken but rejected the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender (they used Mokusatsu, basically to ignore something so beneath your consideration).

In a massive over reaction, they got two bombs dropped on them, as a demonstration of power to the rest of the world.

As @Yussarian says, whilst it may have been overkill, there were far greater and less justifiable acts during the war. That doesn't excuse it but I'm pretty meh over it. A (relatively) small number of innocent people died from one of the most revolting cultures in human history that their leaders could have prevented.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Yes, Japan was ready to surrender under certain terms, and yes those certain terms were agreed to after the bombs were dropped, but there are certain mitigating reasons for those terms to have been acceptable after the bombs were dropped, but not before. Which is to say that the true devastation these weapons would wreak was not fully understood at this time, even by the people who created them, let alone the decision makers who signed off on their use. The blasts created in the tests were significantly larger than predicted, no one had real knowledge of radiation poisoning, and there is something to be said that they had only been tested.

What I mean by only been tested is that there was no real framework for people to understand these bombs. That framework has only come into place in the aftermath of their use on people. Think about how nukes are described to the layman, 5x the power of Hiroshima, 10x the power of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, etc. It is through their use that we have an understanding of how dreadful these weapons truly are, but before they were used in combat that framework for understanding them just didn't exist. It is only with hindsight and pictures of the devastation they wrought that it really hits home in the mind of the observer. Yes, firebombing caused more devastation and loss of life, but that was hundreds of planes dropping thousands of bombs, it just doesn't have the psychological impact that one bomb has. That said, it is a good point that total war had made this kind of devastation a legitimate tactic of war, both sides had shown a willingness to kill civilians to achieve their goals.

At various meetings throughout the war - Potsdam, Yalta, Tehran, being the major ones - it was agreed that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable means of surrender. This was for various reasons, appease the Soviets, ensure hegemony over Europe and the Pacific, previous experiences from WW1. FDR was the spearhead of this on the U.S. side, but how much he confided in his Vice President Truman about the reasons and framework behind this aren't particularly clear. What is clear is that once Truman became President he had not been fully briefed on every situation and was playing catch up in all manner of areas, but it was important for him to be seen as strong, in command, and have continuity with FDR's policies amongst the political elite, as an election was on the horizon.

In combination with this, it was becoming very clear to the Western Allies that the Soviets were going to become their fiercest competition in the post-war world. The Soviets were making it very clear that they were going to brook no interference from the allies within territories they controlled, as they had been given no say in how Italy was to be governed when it was liberated earlier in the war. At the last meeting, Potsdam, when it was still looking like Japan would be able to fight on for a significant time, Soviet support in the Pacific had been pursued and assurances achieved that they would switch attentions over to the Pacific theatre at the earliest opportunity.

So there was an impending red tide just starting to push into the Pacific, which the allies were realizing they don't actually want, as the Soviet Union with warm water ports in the Pacific could threaten U.S. hegemony of the area in the post-war era; A President that felt he need to be strong and decisive, but didn't really have as firm a grasp on all the information as his predecessor had; and a new weapon that no one fully understood yet.

Yes, Japan was ready to surrender, yes it could have been accepted, but agreements had been made between the allies that unconditional surrender was the only option. However, it isn't completely clear if Truman had been made aware of all the reasoning behind the need for unconditional surrender, but his need to be seen to have continuity with FDR would have played into his decision not to accept the surrender offered, but strive for FDR's previous goal. Concerns about the Soviets annexing territory, or even a divided Japan, much like Berlin, would have also played a role in Truman's decision to drop the bomb to expediate Japan into accepting unconditional surrender.

However, once it became clear that Japan would continue to ask for the exemption for the Emperor, and the true horror of these weapons being used was starting to be realised, the surrender was accepted. It saved lives, on both sides, as any invasion would have been a horrific loss of life, but I believe it also saved many future lives, by showing the world the true power of these weapons when their use was confined to a unilateral engagement. Had the bombs not been dropped then and created the framework for how they would be regarded in the future, their use may have first been in a conflict in which both sides could bring them to bear, possibly legitimising their use as tactical warheads, or even worse ending in a full scale nuclear conflict.

That's what I can remember from my paper I wrote on it 6 years or so ago, I am likely forgetting things, mixing up a few things here and there, but generally I'll stand by it.

Good post man, what was your major if I may ask?

Let me paraphrase what you wrote, tell me if Im wrong;

Japan was ready to surrender bar a few caveats regarding their Emperor remaining on the throne/Futton

The allies were shitting bricks due to the Soviets global (Euro Pacifc) post world powers

The US dropped the bombs on Japan as a show of force to both the Japanese and Ruskies

Japan kinda got fucked over.

Do you know why we wanted the Japanese Emperor off the throne before the bombs were dropped?

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

***Edited to add the terms of the declaration***
On July 26, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:[1]

• the elimination "for all time of the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
• the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
• that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine," as had been announced in theCairo Declaration in 1943.[3]
• that "the Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives."
• that "we do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."

On the other hand, the declaration offered that:

• "The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
• "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
• "The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."

The only mention of "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:[1]

• "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."[1]

Contrary to what had been intended at its conception, disenfranchising the Japanese leadership so the people would accept a mediated transition, the declaration made no direct mention of the Emperor at all. It did, however, insist that "the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest must be eliminated for all time".[4] Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively whether the Emperor might potentially become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.[5]

The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted[citation needed] as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb which had been successfully tested in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, the day before the Potsdam Conference opened. Although the document warned of further destruction like aerial bombings, it did not mention anything about the atomic bomb.

 

[member 3289]

So to be clear, you're comparing leaving the Nazis to grow before the war to leaving the Japanese to wither away after the major conflict?

I'm comparing two situations in which countries are left alone.

 

[1031]

I'm comparing two situations in which countries are left alone.

Fair enough but those situations are not similar in many ways BEYOND the (hypothetical) notion of just saying "y know what, we're pretty sure you're not going to get up to too much at this point in time." One was on the rise militarily and the other was beyond decimated.

 

[Zeph]

Good post man, what was your major if I may ask?

Let me paraphrase what you wrote, tell me if Im wrong;

Japan was ready to surrender bar a few caveats regarding their Emperor remaining on the throne/Futton

The allies were shitting bricks due to the Soviets global (Euro Pacifc) post world powers

The US dropped the bombs on Japan as a show of force to both the Japanese and Ruskies

Japan kinda got fucked over.

Do you know why we wanted the Japanese Emperor off the throne before the bombs were dropped?

That was the paraphrase version. I was a single history undergraduate.

 

[Yossarian]

Good post man, what was your major if I may ask?

Let me paraphrase what you wrote, tell me if Im wrong;

Japan was ready to surrender bar a few caveats regarding their Emperor remaining on the throne/Futton

The allies were shitting bricks due to the Soviets global (Euro Pacifc) post world powers

The US dropped the bombs on Japan as a show of force to both the Japanese and Ruskies

Japan kinda got fucked over.

Do you know why we wanted the Japanese Emperor off the throne before the bombs were dropped?

Yeah, it was Japan that got fucked over in WW2.... Am I paraphrasing that correct? lol

 

[Yossarian]

Okay my rational perspective is that bombing 200k+ civilians who had nothing to do with the deaths you posted earlier was fine.

Cool?

Do what you do man. I am not here to persuade you, just asking about your reasoning. And in turn I explain my reasoning. No need to ask for my permission sir.

The targeting of civilians have been practiced by both sides. The 300,000 innocent civilians in Nanking by Japan for instance. Again a number that exceeds those two bombings dramatically.

Again, by drafting the population of Japan, Hirohito turned these cities into military targets. What do you do if the last man, woman, and child are instructed to fight to the death?

It is tragic, I am not arguing that. I wish those bombs were never necessary. In fact, I wish the Japanese never started that war by attacking an unsuspecting Pearl Harbor. Sometimes you start a fight, that you can't finish. If anyone is responsible for those civilians, it is the Emperor of Japan by starting this thing to begin with.

I am but a history geek, enjoying the conversation.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

The targeting of civilians have been practiced by both sides. The 300,000 innocent civilians in Nanking by Japan for instance. Again a number that exceeds those two bombings dramatically.

Very few American civilians were killed by the Japanese, you mean to tell me the US government was acting on behalf of Japan's annexed neighbors in dropping the H Bombs? I dont get the point here sorry man.

Again, by drafting the population of Japan, Hirohito turned these cities into military targets. What do you do if the last man, woman, and child are instructed to fight to the death?

Kill every man, woman and child yeah! Do I get a prize? fucking hell haha sorry thatss funny They got drafted dude you said it yourself.

Sometimes you start a fight, that you can't finish. If anyone is responsible for those civilians, it is the Emperor of Japan by starting this thing to begin with.

They actually were finishing, they were ready to give up and then they got bombed, Isnt that what killed those civilians? Was there something compelling them to drop those bombs? What was the worst case scenario for the allies at that stage really? A reasonable worst case please

Cheers man

 

[Yossarian]

Very few American civilians were killed by the Japanese, you mean to tell me the US government was acting on behalf of Japan's annexed neighbors in dropping the H Bombs? I dont get the point here sorry man.



Kill every man, woman and child yeah! Do I get a prize? fucking hell haha sorry thatss funny They got drafted dude you said it yourself.



They actually were finishing, they were ready to give up and then they got bombed, Isnt that what killed those civilians? Was there something compelling them to drop those bombs? What was the worst case scenario for the allies at that stage really? A reasonable worst case please

Cheers man

Maybe a worse case was, having the Americans leave, and the Russians invade Japan. Plenty of room in the Gulags.

 

[lookoutawhale]

heres is an interesting documentary i saw before regarding this subject. PBS's The Bomb

How the Japanese were firebombed and how 100,000 citizens in Tokyo were killed one night.

They were given a proposal of unconditional surrender, which Japan refused because they wanted their Emperor to remain in power. They were fighting to the death. So Truman had the choice of manually sending troops into Japan that would have result in heavy American losses or the bomb. He chose the bomb.

i forwarded it to the part where they talk about Japan: 38 min 17 sec


View: https://youtu.be/XGfI9uVxsjM?t=38m17s

 

[HEATH VON DOOM]

Maybe a worse case was, having the Americans leave, and the Russians invade Japan. Plenty of room in the Gulags.

The Japanese actually had a treaty with Russia, that's why they were trying to use them to broker a truce. When that was no longer seen as a option the Russians declared war on the Japanese so they could take as much as the could before the US defeatsd the Japanese. If the Japanese should be pissed about anything it should be that.

 

[teamquestnorth]

The H bombs were a necessity. It was either that or face an allied causality rate into the hundreds of thousands. Not to mention probably a million+ Japanese casualties.

The Japanese showed no quarter throughout the war when they would behead POW's, rape and murder civilians etc so none was showed to them.

WW2 was an absolutely brutal war that should forever serve as a reminder to always try to work things out through diplomatic channels.

 

[Yossarian]

The Japanese actually had a treaty with Russia, that's why they were trying to use them to broker a truce. When that was no longer seen as a option the Russians declared war on the Japanese so they could take as much as the could before the US defeatsd the Japanese. If the Japanese should be pissed about anything it should be that.

Yes, that was the neutrality pact of 41. But Stalin attacked regardless of that pact, as to fulfill a promise he made to the allies. Moral of story? Do not trust people named Molotov, and do not piss off Russians

 

[member 1013]

 

[member 1013]

Stalin was cool, he put my grandma up in a nice clapboard shack in the Siberian wilderness and gave her an onion a day to eat.

Good guy.

 

[Zeph]

Yes, that was the neutrality pact of 41. But Stalin attacked regardless of that pact, as to fulfill a promise he made to the allies. Moral of story? Do not trust people named Molotov, and do not piss off Russians

Hitler broke the neutrality pact.

 

[Wintermute]

Why did the Americans not decide to simply disengage from the conflict with the Japanese?
I mean why didn't they simply take a highly defensive role and allow the Soviets and Chinese to deal with that threat?

I realize some of you history buffs will scoff at the idea or suggestion but to me it just seemed unnecessary to get a surrender out of a nation that was already beaten.

Same reason the media won't stop reporting on mass shootings within the states, which would probably minimize them.