What is your take on the A-bomb droppings on Japan?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

The atom bomb was not yet available in May 1945 when Germany surrendered. I assume you are not seriously suggested that America should have nuked Berlin after the surrender.

Yes. If you and others think it was fine to do it,then Berlin should have been nuked.

[Sarmatian]

Because... those that didn't want to surrender committed sepuku? I said that before. Also, regardless of what everyone thinks about the time between the two bombs, the Japanese took the bombing of Hiroshima with relative ease. And about them "not having enough time to respond to a surrender"; japanese radio was being monitored 99.9% of the time, and their current codes had been cracked. They could have got the message out a lot quicker than you think.

This is not just noticing that a city was bombed, which could have been radioed easily, yes. It is also about understanding a new weapon, assessing the damage it could do, assessing opponents ability to build and deliver that kind of weapon to ultimately getting that information to those in charge, have them discuss it and finally make a decision. Three days is simply not enough. Remember that this is the chaos of war. If you hadn't already, I suggest you watch Der Untergang. It conveyed pretty accurately just how hard it was for Hitler and those around him to get accurate information.

Key word here is "surrender". If they would have surrendered in any other way, it's likely the result would have been the same... but that's IF. Do you know what Bushido is? I mean, have you actually read it? Because you wouldn't make these claims if you had.

Ok. You're of the opinion that Japan would simply ignore reality and continue to fight against all odds. I disagree.

Yes, I know what Bushido is. No, I haven't read it. And please, enough with the mysticism and enough with comparing an extinct feudal warrior caste with IJA.

What that other guy said. The US had plenty of POW's, and yes, they were treated a helluva lot better than the POW's of the Germans were, and even the Japanese.

Don't disagree. The point was that Japanese did try to surrender and in larger number than the records show. Would have been more if the Americans treated them all as POW's.

Well, there ya go. I don't think this helped you any, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

It helped me plenty, because it shows that some common sense was present even in the minds of the military clique that was ruling Japan at the time and that they were contemplating, even pursuing, surrender, contrary to "death before dishonour" and "long live bushido" myths. They were able to assess that the war is lost. The idea wasn't to defeat America, they knew that they've lost, but they hoped for a show of force that would grant them better conditions later on.

Sure it does, because they had proven it dozens of times before World War 2. And it has nothing to do with "sacrificing" anyone - children are just as capable of making irrational decisions as adults are. Have you seen Somalia lately?

err, ok, if you say so.

There's this red scare stuff again... but, okay. I'll concede this point, but I don't see how that helps your argument any.

Again, helps me plenty because the idea of communist Japan wasn't at all pleasing to the US. A quick end of the war by the use of the bomb was preferred.

[Madae]

This is not just noticing that a city was bombed, which could have been radioed easily, yes. It is also about understanding a new weapon, assessing the damage it could do, assessing opponents ability to build and deliver that kind of weapon to ultimately getting that information to those in charge, have them discuss it and finally make a decision.

You are aware there were tests at Los Alamos, right?

Three days is simply not enough. Remember that this is the chaos of war. If you hadn't already, I suggest you watch Der Untergang. It conveyed pretty accurately just how hard it was for Hitler and those around him to get accurate information.

Are you kidding? Downfall was the last days of Hitler and his regime (10 days, to be exact) - after they had been continuously defeated at every turn. Their country was in complete chaos, and you're trying to tell me that has any bearing on a country like Japan who's infrastructure was still completely intact? No, I'm not watching a movie that I've already seen to get any info on the Japanese and what they were/weren't capable of. Their navies were defeated, not their armies or their spirit.

Ok. You're of the opinion that Japan would simply ignore reality and continue to fight against all odds. I disagree.

That's fine.

Yes, I know what Bushido is. No, I haven't read it. And please, enough with the mysticism and enough with comparing an extinct feudal warrior caste with IJA.

Not only is this idea simply ludicruous, but you're trying to completely throw out a fundamental concept of what made the Japanese the Japanese. That isn't how you win an argument - sorry. We're talking about something that was just beginning to be fazed out less than 100 years before the war. That generation was still alive and kicking, and it was easily within their limits to keep it alive. It is still romanticized even today.

Don't disagree. The point was that Japanese did try to surrender and in larger number than the records show. Would have been more if the Americans treated them all as POW's.

Apparently it wasn't enough. No offense, but I'm going to put up the word of world leaders over yours. If the terms of surrender that the Japanese were offering wasn't enough for them (we're talking "as a whole", here), it's not enough for me. If I thought any different, I would consider myself their equals or better, and that's quite absurd.

It helped me plenty, because it shows that some common sense was present even in the minds of the military clique that was ruling Japan at the time and that they were contemplating, even pursuing, surrender, contrary to "death before dishonour" and "long live bushido" myths.

You can stop with calling it a "myth", because it was far from that. It was practically the rules of how they lived their lives for a thousand years. I'd hardly call something that they adhered to for a millenia a "myth" and easily tossed aside just like that. Ever heard of the Bible? Let's argue about how easy it is to throw away that idea.

And I'm not going to doubt that there were people that wanted to pursue surrender - there absolutely was. However, that was never the argument to begin with. The argument is that they were not willing to unanimously do it at that moment, which is what made the bombs, arguably, necessary.

They were able to assess that the war is lost. The idea wasn't to defeat America, they knew that they've lost, but they hoped for a show of force that would grant them better conditions later on.

The idea was always to defeat America, otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to do it in the first place. And if you're going to suckerpunch someone, don't expect them to want to give you "favorable" terms.

err, ok, if you say so.

You can stop it with this.

Again, helps me plenty because the idea of communist Japan wasn't at all pleasing to the US. A quick end of the war by the use of the bomb was preferred.

We're talking about a country that forcefully isolated itself because it didn't want outside influences, such as Christianity, taking to much of a hold on their people. I do not see the Japanese giving up everything they've lived for that easily, especially with what they believed in. The threat of Japanese communism is quite laughable, to me.

[Sarmatian]

You are aware there were tests at Los Alamos, right?

Yes, but Japanese delegation's invitation to the event got lost in the post, along with the manual.

Are you kidding? Downfall was the last days of Hitler and his regime (10 days, to be exact) - after they had been continuously defeated at every turn. Their country was in complete chaos, and you're trying to tell me that has any bearing on a country like Japan who's infrastructure was still completely intact? No, I'm not watching a movie that I've already seen to get any info on the Japanese and what they were/weren't capable of. Their navies were defeated, not their armies or their spirit.

Japan is a series of islands and lacks just about everything a modern country needs. Defeat of the navy meant that Japanese can't produce any industrial good, including military equipment. A huge chunk of the army was outside Japan, they couldn't supply them without a navy. Japanese army was defeated many times, on various islands by the Americans and the bulk of it that was on Asian mainland was cut off and partly bogged down in China or utterly destroyed (Kwantung army in Manchuria).

Concerning intact infrastructure, this is Tokyo in 1945

Not only is this idea simply ludicruous, but you're trying to completely throw out a fundamental concept of what made the Japanese the Japanese. That isn't how you win an argument - sorry. We're talking about something that was just beginning to be fazed out less than 100 years before the war. That generation was still alive and kicking, and it was easily within their limits to keep it alive. It is still romanticized even today.

It was romanticized and some indeed tried to act in accordance with it, but that was limited to officers, not the population or even army as a whole.

Apparently it wasn't enough. No offense, but I'm going to put up the word of world leaders over yours. If the terms of surrender that the Japanese were offering wasn't enough for them (we're talking "as a whole", here), it's not enough for me. If I thought any different, I would consider myself their equals or better, and that's quite absurd.

Trusting the politicians at the their word usually is a good idea. No offense, but If you're already decided what you're gonna believe, than there's little point in our discussion.

You can stop with calling it a "myth", because it was far from that. It was practically the rules of how they lived their lives for a thousand years. I'd hardly call something that they adhered to for a millenia a "myth" and easily tossed aside just like that. Ever heard of the Bible? Let's argue about how easy it is to throw away that idea.

Only a small percentage lived that way even in the past. If you believe that peasants and fishermen in Japan lived by the code of Bushido, you've got another thing coming.

The idea was always to defeat America, otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to do it in the first place. And if you're going to suckerpunch someone, don't expect them to want to give you "favorable" terms.

Nope, the idea at first was to strike hard, cripple the US Pacific Fleet and get them to conclude a peace, much like they did with Russia in 1905. Unfortunately, they missed the carriers and USA in 1941 was in much better position to continue than Russia in 1905. Even in the beginning, no one really believed they could defeat US in a total war.

Later on, in 1945, they just wanted a last show of force so that they could get a few concessions in the peace treaty.

We're talking about a country that forcefully isolated itself because it didn't want outside influences, such as Christianity, taking to much of a hold on their people. I do not see the Japanese giving up everything they've lived for that easily, especially with what they believed in. The threat of Japanese communism is quite laughable, to me.

Read about Japanese POWs that came back from the Soviet Union and their opinion on the communism. That being said, if Soviet Army was there, no one would have asked the Japanese if they liked it, it would have been enforced.

[Madae]

Yes, but Japanese delegation's invitation to the event got lost in the post, along with the manual.

Cute. Want to have a discussion now?

Japan is a series of islands and lacks just about everything a modern country needs.

There is a word for this - it starts with "Bull" and ends with...

Defeat of the navy meant that Japanese can't produce any industrial good, including military equipment.

Are you done making stuff up?

A huge chunk of the army was outside Japan, they couldn't supply them without a navy. Japanese army was defeated many times, on various islands by the Americans and the bulk of it that was on Asian mainland was cut off and partly bogged down in China or utterly destroyed (Kwantung army in Manchuria).

Ok.

Concerning intact infrastructure, this is Tokyo in 1945

Because Tokyo is the only city in Japan.

It was romanticized and some indeed tried to act in accordance with it, but that was limited to officers, not the population or even army as a whole.

More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.

Trusting the politicians at the their word usually is a good idea.

You sound like you have some problems that run just a tiny bit deeper than your disagreement with me.

No offense, but If you're already decided what you're gonna believe, than there's little point in our discussion.

That's funny - I could say the same thing to you.

Only a small percentage lived that way even in the past. If you believe that peasants and fishermen in Japan lived by the code of Bushido, you've got another thing coming.

More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.

Nope, the idea at first was to strike hard, cripple the US Pacific Fleet and get them to conclude a peace, much like they did with Russia in 1905. Unfortunately, they missed the carriers and USA in 1941 was in much better position to continue than Russia in 1905.

Well, you got something right at least, except;

Even in the beginning, no one really believed they could defeat US in a total war.

Later on, in 1945, they just wanted a last show of force so that they could get a few concessions in the peace treaty.

Sources, please.

Read about Japanese POWs that came back from the Soviet Union and their opinion on the communism. That being said, if Soviet Army was there, no one would have asked the Japanese if they liked it, it would have been enforced.

It sounds like you want me to do the work for you. Again, that's not how you win an argument. If you're trying to convince me of something, don't say "Go read/watch this and come back". It's your job to prove me wrong - not my job to prove you right.

But then again, this argument isn't really going anywhere, so I really don't see the point. I'm fine with it ending as is; you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe.

[Sarmatian]

[QUOTE=Madae;2053384306]Cute. Want to have a discussion now?[/qoute]

Always, but we need to decide what we're discussing. I'm talking about the Japanese and the effect of the bomb on Japan and you tell me that Americans had a test at Los Alamos. What's that got to do with it?

There is a word for this - it starts with "Bull" and ends with...

Ok, I thought that Japan relying on imports was common knowledge but ok...

http://www.kobeworld.com/1country_3naturalres.html
That's the gist of it. Japan lacks natural resources.

A more in-depth article about Japan's economic expansion pre- and during ww2.

http://www.historyorb.com/asia/japan...xpansion.shtml

Are you done making stuff up?

I haven't made anything up, as you can see by the previous links.

Because Tokyo is the only city in Japan.

Osaka


Kobe


Now, I can go on but you should make an effort yourself now.

More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai. Not at a single point in history of Japan, number of Samurais exceeded 10%.

They were disbanded as a military caste by the Emperor Meiji. Some of their influence remained in the army, not unlike how Prussian aristocracy tended to have high position in the Wehrmacht.

More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.

No, as shown by the previous link.

Sources, please.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/Japan.html

An excerpt

First, its navy would neutralize the American fleet with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan would also seize America's central Pacific bases at Guam and Wake islands and invade the Philippines. With American naval power crippled, Japan's military would be free to seize Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies in a series of rapid amphibious operations. Japan would then establish a defensive ring around its newly conquered empire by fortifying islands in the south and the central Pacific.

Japan's leaders were convinced that Americans, once involved in the European war, would be willing to negotiate peace in the Pacific.



I rest my case. Do what you want do to, I'm done arguing with you.

[Madae]

Always, but we need to decide what we're discussing. I'm talking about the Japanese and the effect of the bomb on Japan and you tell me that Americans had a test at Los Alamos. What's that got to do with it?

It is also about understanding a new weapon, assessing the damage it could do, assessing opponents ability to build and deliver that kind of weapon to ultimately getting that information to those in charge, have them discuss it and finally make a decision.

You brought it up, not me.

I haven't made anything up, as you can see by the previous links.

Congratulations.

Now, I can go on but you should make an effort yourself now.

There are 56 cities in Japan. Indulge me.

Not at a single point in history of Japan, number of Samurais exceeded 10%. They were disbanded as a military caste by the Emperor Meiji. Some of their influence remained in the army, not unlike how Prussian aristocracy tended to have high position in the Wehrmacht.

Who said anything about having to be a Samurai in order to follow Bushido?

I rest my case. Do what you want do to, I'm done arguing with you.

Do you realize how childish that makes you sound when you say that? I think I'm done with you, too.

Long story short; no one convinced anyone of anything, which is why these discussions are usually pointless.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I am agreeing with Made here. Your posts samiatrian,make no sense. The Soviets may have defeated the Japanese,but they didn't have much intrest in it. And Commuinsim wouldnt have been popular in Japan. If Japan is a series of islands,then how did they manage to war? They have no industry,they supplied the army and made the WII,how come you're appearing so anti-japanese?

[Sarmatian]

snip

It's just that I believe you're now doing this on purpose. You refuse to discuss anything, make outlandish claims, ask for sources for what is common knowledge, all the while playing dumb like when I mention that the Japanese needed time to assess the damage from the bomb and figure out literally what hit them, you ask me if I'm aware that Americans tested the bomb at Los Alamos??? When I explained again, your response was "you brought it up"???

Oh, and all that without a single source from your side... No problems from my side, really. it just that it feels I'm arguing with the kid who doesn't really know what he's talking about and is being ignorant on purpose. It's not my job to educate you, I just like to discuss stuff here with other history buffs here. You want to act like that, be my guest but you won't drag me further.

[Madae]

It's just that I believe you're now doing this on purpose.

Doing what, exactly? Disagreeing with you?

You refuse to discuss anything, make outlandish claims

Everything I've said is easily within reason, but purely speculation, which I pointed out before I barely even entered this conversation. For you to think you have any idea what was really going on back then is just dumb, and I really don't care how many sources you have. There's a reason this whole discussion about the bombs is controversial.

To be honest, I never really cared about your opinion anyway.

ask for sources for what is common knowledge

Are you trying to insult me? Seriously? You're the one getting all uppity about this, not me - so really, what's your deal? Does it bother you to be challanged that much? Because I wonder what it would be like to see someone smarter and more important than you argue one point successfully after being challenged intellectually at every turn, just to go and say "I'm done, I'm right, you're wrong, Bye" after really only proving a handful of minor details that, really, had nothing to do with the main argument to begin with - "were the bombs necessary?". I'll concede that you showed me some things I didn't know about necessarily, but that's really it.

all the while playing dumb like when I mention that the Japanese needed time to assess the damage from the bomb and figure out literally what hit them, you ask me if I'm aware that Americans tested the bomb at Los Alamos??? When I explained again, your response was "you brought it up"???

Because I feel that an adequate test consists of turning a giant strip of desert into one massive sheet of glass, among other things. You also said "someone needed to assess the damage", not "the Japanese needed to assess it". I took it one way because you left out an important piece of information - who exactly?

Oh, and all that without a single source from your side...

Because I don't need to.

I'm arguing with the kid who doesn't really know what he's talking about and is being ignorant on purpose.

Ok, NOW this discussion is over. The only thing we've proven here is that you simply don't like to be wrong and would rather insult the person than argue impartially.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't think Truman's notes say what you or Esser think they say.

Esser is interpreting fini as surrender. That's not how I read it. I read it as "doomed". Frankly, the Japs and the Germans were fini in 1943. Arguably in 1941. When America entered the war, Churchill said something like "So, we won after all."

If it was already clear that the Japanese were 'doomed' in 1945 and much earlier - which it was - why would Truman see Soviet involvement as the final straw? Your interpretation only makes sense if we are to believe that Truman saw the Japanese as still having a chance at victory or at least survival before Soviet involvement, which he clearly didn't.

It makes much more sense to interpret it as 'surrender', as it was well known in the administration that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a conditional surrender through Moscow and even an alliance. Without the Soviet Union, there was no where left for Japan to turn in an effort to find more favorable terms - something else that Truman knew very well, as can be seen in intercepted messages, such as this June 1945 intercept "Substance of Ambassador Sato's 8 June message to Foreign Minister Togo":

If Russia by some chance should suddenly decide to take advantage of our weakness and intervene against us with force of arms, we would be in a completely hopeless situation. It is clear as day that the Imperial Army in Manchukuo would be completely unable to oppose the Red Army which has just won a great victory and is superior to us on all points.

And his own intelligence, including the U.S.-British Combined Intelligence Committee's "Estimate of the Enemy Situation" which stated:

An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat.

This view is supported by historical assessments of the time including the official British history of the war:

"The Russian declaration of war was the decisive factor in bringing Japan to accept the Potsdam declaration, for it brought home to all members of the Supreme Council the realization that the last hope of a negotiated peace had gone and that there was no alternative but to accept the Allied terms sooner or later."

And also recent archival research by historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa who have concluded that it was in fact the Soviet invasion of Manchuria - not the atomic bombings - that finally induced the Japanese leadership to agree to the Potsdam Declaration. Only a collection American historians have refused to accept the Russian situation.

And bringing the discussion back to the necessity of the bomb in order to save 'a million American lives' (another study that disproves that notion), why - if Truman understood that Soviet involvement would have a significant effect on the Japanese (regardless of whether we assume that to be 'dooming' them or 'inducing them to surrender') why wouldn't he wait until that actually happened to gauge the results? Why was there such a race to deplete the US nuclear arsenal first on August 6 and then on the 9th - the very same day Russia joined the conflict? Why was there only a three day window between the dropping of the first and the second?

In essence, if the bombs were seen only as a last resort to save American lives, why was there such a time crunch? Japan had absolutely no offensive capability, and American forces surrounding the islands were facing very little danger. An American invasion could be conducted at Truman's leisure - unless there were other factors besides American lives to consider, such a Soviet intervention.

I think your money quote shows Truman's motivations in rather a favorable light. "think of the kids who won't be killed!" was always the conventional justification for dropping the bomb.

Yes, it does make his motivations clear. The only way the bomb would save American lives is if an American invasion had to be launched instead, and the only reason an American invasion would have had to have been launched was to keep Japan from being invaded by the Soviet Union. He even said it himself in later years.

"One of the main objectives of the Potsdam Conference was to get Russia in as quickly as we could and then to keep Russia out of Japan—and I did it."

And the same sentiment was stated even more clearly by his Secretary of State James Byrnes in an interview in US News and World Report in 1960:

Interviewer: “Was there a feeling of urgency to end the war in the Pacific before the Russians became too deeply involved?”

Byrnes: “There certainly was on my part, and I’m sure that, whatever views President Truman may have had of it earlier in the year, that in the days immediately preceding the dropping of the bomb his views were the same as mine- we wanted to get through the Japanese phase of the war before the Russians came in”

So yes, Truman did hope the bomb would save American lives - but that was only because he had already committed to invading Japan before the Russians could for geopolitical reasons. That would be like George W hoping that a new weapon would save lives in Iraq in March of 2003 - hardly a moral position to take.

I don't buy your moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies; I don't think Hitler and Tojo cared much about kids not being killed; they are called militarists and war-mongers for a reason.

FDR certainly had no interest in making war.

[Brenus]

“The Soviets may have defeated the Japanese,but they didn't have much intrest in it. And Commuinsim wouldnt have been popular in Japan.”
The Soviets did defeat the Japanese in Manchuria, Korea, and Kuril Islands. No much interest is probably why Russia still occupies some islands. Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and others didn’t like Communism… It didn’t matter…

“If Japan is a series of islands, then how did they manage to war?” Pure aggression and sphere of co-prosperity… Just need a fleet and good army…

About Samurai, the revolt against Mutsu Hito (The last Samurai) to create a Republic (Jules Brunet was the character played by Tom Cruise). He was involved in the expedition in Mexico, went to Japan in 1867, and will be one of the Creators of the Republic of Ezo with Takeaki Enomoto as President. Even in the 19th Century, the total obedience to the Emperor was not so strong, apparently…

I agree with PJ (once is not habit) and Sarmatian. A show to convince USSR is not exclusive of a political push to persuade Japan to surrender. You have to remember that the targets were spared of bombing before in order to really have a good assessment of the destruction…

[Beskar]

I believe there may be an argument of interest, I believe I heard something that the use of the A-bomb was also rushed to prevent the Soviets fully turning around and taking Asia, so they wanted Japan to surrender quickly.

[Catiline]

Gentlemen, I don't think the point by point quote/riposte is being helpful here. Let's trhy and channel discussion without the personal insults please. Otherwise it will be discussion over.

This is also gthe second thread today where the suggestion that somehow citing sources isn't important. Unfortunately for that approach, this is the Monastry and not the backroom ( i'm being harsh on the backroom there - they'd pull you to shreds for lack of sources), and we expect to see sources here, especially when the topic or claim is controversial

[Madae]

Gentlemen, I don't think the point by point quote/riposte is being helpful here. Let's trhy and channel discussion without the personal insults please. Otherwise it will be discussion over.

I'm going to assume you're talking to me and Sarmatian. Fair enough. I think Sarmatian and I are quite happy to avoid each other anyway.

This is also gthe second thread today where the suggestion that somehow citing sources isn't important. Unfortunately for that approach, this is the Monastry and not the backroom ( i'm being harsh on the backroom there - they'd pull you to shreds for lack of sources), and we expect to see sources here, especially when the topic or claim is controversial

My intention wasn't to argue for the opinions/claims of others - it was to argue my own opinion with what I know of the Japanese. Therefore, I don't need sources, because I'm not trying to claim I know anything other than what is already common knowledge. If you see something the requires a source, I'll gladly make an attempt to find one for you. No one asked me to provide one though and, therefore, I never tried.

PS. I would appreciate it if you did not edit my posts but leave the person who arguably attacked me first untouched. My "see ya later" comment was probably uncalled for, but it was no different than what he had been saying to me.

[econ21]

If it was already clear that the Japanese were 'doomed' in 1945 and much earlier - which it was - why would Truman see Soviet involvement as the final straw? Your interpretation only makes sense if we are to believe that Truman saw the Japanese as still having a chance at victory or at least survival before Soviet involvement, which he clearly didn't.

It makes much more sense to interpret it as 'surrender',...

If he meant surrender, I think he would have said surrender. "Fini" is a much more vague term, not unlike another F-word we are not supposed to use at the Org. As I've said, I think the Allies had for a long time realised that the Axis were fini. (Intelligent Axis commanders also realised that - the architect of Pearl Harbour predicting at the time of the attack, that Japan would have six months to run riot in the Pacific and then would be in trouble.) However, they still exulted in the substantial steps along the road to victory. The Russian intervention was as substantial a step towards the defeat of Japan as any, imo and quite justified Truman's exclamation. I can't think of any more decisive steps in WW2, except Germany's invasion of Russia and declaration of war on the US. I'm more inclined to take Truman at his own word and accept that he thought dropping the bomb would bring Japan to surrender much sooner and with less bloodshed than would otherwise be the case.

And also recent archival research by historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa who have concluded that it was in fact the Soviet invasion of Manchuria - not the atomic bombings - that finally induced the Japanese leadership to agree to the Potsdam Declaration.

Yes, I've heard Hasegawa's work alluded to, but never read any of the specifics that he uses to support his thesis. The Russians invaded on mid-night of 9 August; the second A-bomb was dropped while the Japanese war cabinet had just started to meet to discuss the invasion. I suspect it's almost impossible to separate out the two factors. Even faced with this double blow, the war cabinet was still divided with the hardline faction still wanting to fight on. The Japanese Emperor, who appears to have been decisive in breaking the deadlock, referred to the A-bomb not the Russian invasion as the decisive factor in his surrender address.

And bringing the discussion back to the necessity of the bomb in order to save 'a million American lives' (another study that disproves that notion), why - if Truman understood that Soviet involvement would have a significant effect on the Japanese (regardless of whether we assume that to be 'dooming' them or 'inducing them to surrender') why wouldn't he wait until that actually happened to gauge the results? Why was there such a race to deplete the US nuclear arsenal first on August 6 and then on the 9th - the very same day Russia joined the conflict? Why was there only a three day window between the dropping of the first and the second?

On the dropping of the second A-bomb, I suspect that was done promptly to convince the Japanese that the Americans had more than one bomb. The Japanese knew how hard it was to make an Atomic bomb and after Hiroshimo questioned whether the US had more. [A captured Amercian pilot told them the US had 100 A-bombs, because he thought that was what they wanted to hear. The Japanese military believed him. And still did not want to surrender. ] The same argument is why the Amercians dropped the first bomb on a city rather than an underpopulated base: having only two nukes, they did not want to squander them. They were essentially engaged in something of a bluff, trying to convince the Japanese they had many A-bombs as firing off your only two such weapons would be a much less effective threat.

I am not arguing that dropping the A-bomb was necessary or morally justified, by the way. (I am keeping an open mind on that.) Merely that Truman thought it was necessary and morally justified.

PS:I am sorry Catiline my only sources are wikipedia, although it is quite good on this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

[Catiline]

Heh

I'm not suggesting everything has to be sourced, we're not at university, just that it's worth thinking about being able to provide them if challenged.

agreed on the quality of the wikipedia articles.

[Sarmatian]

Well, I didn't expect that I need to provide a source that Japan is an island nation and that it lacks energy and natural resources. I didn't expect that I have to provide a picture to prove Japan's major cities were bombed out by 1945 and that you need a navy to actually provide for troops overseas.

PJ -

[Papewaio]

Does it matter the weapon of choice used if you die and die quickly?

Is the issue the use of atomic bombs instead of conventional warfare?

Conventional weapons were being ignored, there was no rush to surrender even though the bombing of cities by conventional bombs killed as many if not more in a day.

The atomics deaths per bomb was much higher. Is it more wrong to kill many with one bomb vs the same number with many bombs?

The amount of destruction they yielded did give the Japanese a very good reason to surrender as it was a power far beyond they could deploy and it probably saved a lot of face in doing so.

Was it wrong to drop the bombs because the civilians were civilians? Yes, under normal circumstances killing civilians is a bad thing. Was this a normal situation? World War II was well under way, most of the world had been affected in some manner. In war civilians can be collatoral damage. However the atomics were aimed at population centres relatively unscared by bombings. They were squarely aimed at civilians. Surely in warfare this isn't the norm. However it wasn't even normal war by this point. It was total war, war were all citizens of a country may be targeted.

But how did it become so? Something to do with the way the Axis had waged war is the reason. The Axis and in particular the Japanese didn't just kill enemy civilians in an actively fighting province, the Japanese Imperial forces killed surrended people, be they military or civilian. Towns and cities across asia were decimated or worse wiped out. One city alone after surrendering lost 300,000 civilians. The death marches were infamous well before the fall of Okiniawa.

So against that backdrop did the Allies have the right to leave their remaining POWs at the mercy of the Japanese military?

Or did the Allies have a moral imperative to finish the war as quickly as possible?

Based on a land invasion or starvation, millions of Japanese civilians would have died.

So atomics 200k, conventional warfare 2,000k+

Atomics saved lives, it was the moral and right thing to do.

[econ21]

Is the issue the use of atomic bombs instead of conventional warfare?

....

The amount of destruction they yielded did give the Japanese a very good reason to surrender as it was a power far beyond they could deploy and it probably saved a lot of face in doing so.

These are good points. I think they answer Sarmatian's scepticism about why the A-bomb could induce a surrender when greater losses through conventional bombing had not. The Japanese militarist faction hoped for one last great battle in which they could inflict such great casualties that the Allies would come to terms. However, the prospect of 100 A-bombs raining down on their cities - unlike a US invasion - denied them that prospect.

Was it wrong to drop the bombs because the civilians were civilians? Yes, under normal circumstances killing civilians is a bad thing. ... It was total war, war were all citizens of a country may be targeted.

May is a bit of a weasel word in this context. If you mean, ethically permitted, I am not convinced. One important point - that PJ emphasises - is that the war was already effectively won. A total war in which you are fighting for survival may permit you to cross some normal boundaries, although I am not fully persuaded of that. But when you have basically won and just want to end things quickly, the same "imminent risk" kind of argument does not apply.

And of course, even though it was a total war in some senses, it was still fought with rules. The Western allies by and large tried to respect things like proper treatment of prisoners. Bombing was something of a grey area: the Americans seemed to want to try to avoid bombing civilians in Europe (flying by day for greater accuracy) whereas the Brits under Bomber Harris positively encouraged it.

But how did it become so? Something to do with the way the Axis had waged war is the reason.

Partly, but I think sensitivities were coarser back then. I think the Brits were gassing Iraqi villages in the 1930s. In the Post-War period, some US medics were giving orphans STDs for research and leaving them untreated (and ignorant). The Iraqi villagers and the orphans had not done anything particularly odious to warrant this treatment and they were not in "total war" situations. What was the reason? I could conjecture part of it was greater deference and lack of transparency (you could get away with more); part of it was greater nationalism (carrying less for the other); and part of it may be a less developed sense of human rights and associated legal protections.

Or did the Allies have a moral imperative to finish the war as quickly as possible?

Based on a land invasion or starvation, millions of Japanese civilians would have died.

So atomics 200k, conventional warfare 2,000k+

Atomics saved lives, it was the moral and right thing to do.

Opinions differ, but for me, this kind of issue - killing innocents - is not one where the utilitarian calculus of weighing up numbers seems compelling. I would rather two soldiers die than one civilian. I would rather war drags on and more die than win it more quickly by targeting civilians.

I used to be an out and out utilitarian, sceptical of "rights" based approachs to ethics, but as I get older, I just think some lines should not be crossed. Reading about the Law of Armed Conflict, discussed in the Al-Awlaki BR thread, I think some restraints on war fighting are a good idea, both pragmatically and ethically. And any minimum set of restraints nowadays is going to include not nuking whole cities full of civilians.

The issue is writ large when we think about contemporary nuclear deterrence. Would it be morally justified to fire hundreds of nukes into enemy cities and anhilate their populations? I just can't see it, but that's what the PostWar nuclear powers were geared up to do (and probably still are).

[Papewaio]

I would rather one civilian die then ten. Blockades/Starvation would have killed woman and children first as the food would have been routed to the military.

Also what value are the POWs left in Japan vs Japanese civilians?

Also given conscription what is the difference between a conscripted military POW and a civilian?

Once the Axis surrended they were rather well looked after.

[econ21]

I would rather one civilian die then ten. Blockades/Starvation would have killed woman and children first as the food would have been routed to the military.

I know. That's a tough one. It's one of the things to come out of the Iraq situation post-1991: Bush Snr played by the rules, fought a limited war, accepted a negotiated surrender and then the US/UN tried to use sanctions to bring Saddam to heel. In many ways, the US/UN behaved as a modern peacelover might find admirable. But it is argued that the sanctions had serious humanitarian effects on the Iraqi population. I am not sure about the truth of those claims, but they are plausible - as is your claim that dropping the A-bombs reduced global human death and suffering.

Yet, I still incline to my peaceloving instinct: there's a difference between directly killing someone and taking actions that indirectly lead to their deaths. If you blockade a city and the blockaded military steal the civilians' food, it is your enemy's actions that are morally responsible for the deaths. They could have shared the food out, surrendered etc.

Generally, I am a consequentialist but dealing with life and death matters, I lean more to a deontological approach -some things are so heinous, you just don't do them, regardless of consequences. Torture and killing of innocents being the most persuasive examples. I veer in this direction, partly because the acts in question are so intrinsically awful and partly because consequentialism can lead to the kind of "anything goes" defence PJ gave for the Nazis (they thought they had to exterminate, to save the German race or whatever).

Also what value are the POWs left in Japan vs Japanese civilians?

High vs low, I think was the received wisdom of the day. From an ethical point of view, they would be equal. But the deontological approach I am inclining towards here is not to judge actions according to a body count, weighted or not.

Also given conscription what is the difference between a conscripted military POW and a civilian?

The conscript is shooting at you? The combatant vs non-combatant distinction in the law of armed conflict is not based on motivation, but on acts.

Once the Axis surrended they were rather well looked after.

Indeed and the rehabilitation of the West Germany and Japan seems remarkably successful compared to the bitter legacies of many other more recent wars. That may be something to be said for the total war/unconditional surrender approach: utterly crush your enemy, to discredit them and their ideas (nothing loses its shine so quickly as militarist who can't gets whipped fighting the war they started). Contrast with the questionable legacy of the more limited war/conditional surrender end to WW1 at Versailles.

[Sarmatian]

I would rather one civilian die then ten. Blockades/Starvation would have killed woman and children first as the food would have been routed to the military.

Also what value are the POWs left in Japan vs Japanese civilians?

Also given conscription what is the difference between a conscripted military POW and a civilian?

Once the Axis surrended they were rather well looked after.

Econ addressed the points really good already, so there's no need for me to expand. I just want to say that this is rather a Machiavellian approach where end justify the means.

To further clarify, I wasn't saying that saving the lives of American soldiers wasn't one of the reasons, just that it wasn't the only or the most important reason. Hiroshima was picked precisely because it was one of the few cities that was relatively unscathed and where the bomb would have had most effect. Hiroshima had few worthy industrial targets, which is why it was relatively unscathed by 1945.

[Montmorency]

Is the issue the use of atomic bombs instead of conventional warfare?

Radiation.

But how did it become so? Something to do with the way the Axis had waged war is the reason.

"They did it first!" Really?

So against that backdrop did the Allies have the right to leave their remaining POWs at the mercy of the Japanese military?

There were only a few thousand left by then, AFAIK.

And of course, even though it was a total war in some senses, it was still fought with rules. The Western allies by and large tried to respect things like proper treatment of prisoners. Bombing was something of a grey area: the Americans seemed to want to try to avoid bombing civilians in Europe (flying by day for greater accuracy) whereas the Brits under Bomber Harris positively encouraged it.

Hamburg, Dresden, disappearances of Japanese POWs.

I would rather one civilian die then ten.

It's never that clear-cut. You'll more often see situations like: 1000-3000 for 500 -1700. Except within even wider ranges. The problem with utilitarianism is that it isn't a pure numbers game; there are too many unknowns and too many probable outcomes. Utilitarian decision-making can lead to both great success and miserable catastrophe. In practice by men, such as men now are, it more often turns out to be the latter.

Edit: Also, utilitarians are bad people.

[Brenus]

"They did it first!" Really? Yeap.

“There were only a few thousand left by then, AFAIK.” So it would have been better if they killed them all…

“Hamburg, Dresden, disappearances of Japanese POWs.” ? Military targets and unfortunate, how do we say today, collateral damages (Germans POW disappeared in the 6/06/1944 D-day) against systematic policy of terror and extermination? I can produce a huge list the towns bombed, raped, razed to the grounds by the Axis Forces, civilians starved, exterminated, deported… Not by bombers (not only) but by grounds troops… Yes, Germany and Japan were harshly treated during the war but after, even if the Peace treaty was worst (for them) than the post WW1 one, their population were not harm. And if they were harshly treated, it was to show Germany especially, they were defeated and they couldn’t pretend they were not like after the WW1.

[Papewaio]

Yes the Axis started the Total War aspects by killing surrended civilians.

The massacres were happening by the Japanese in Asia.

USA responded with sanctions.

Japan decided to respond with Pearl Harbour.

Nan King alone lost in the region of 300,000 civilians post surrender. Add in the Japanese military ran brothel which systmatically detained woman and then raped them.

These happened before Pearl Harbour.

So total war and begun by Japan

There reaction to blockades and sanctions was to escalate the violence.

When invaded as per Okiniawa they fought to the death or hurled themselves off cliffs.

So that kind of blunts the utility of blockades or invasion if they are all going to kill themselves.

=][=

Also I don't buy the argument that a military life is less then a civilian.

How can a fifty year businessman profiting off getting cheap resources from a society gaining these by looting, pillaging, raping and murdering their way through neighboring countries have a life valued higher then a twenty year old kid defending his family, home and nation from such aggressors?

The Japanese civilians happily enjoyed the fruits of their society pillaging until sanctions were put in place. Instead of backin off that same society started a war with the US. Innocence card cannot be played if you are receiving stolen goods, so how can it be applied when it was entire nations that were looted?

"no guv, I didn't notice that we invaded Korea, China, Phillipines, Indonesia.!"

"So how do you explain the large jars of Kim Chi, the Chinese Porcelain fro
China, the oil from South East Asia all at very low prices?"

"well we umm well"

Yeah they were all totally unaware of were the loot was coming from. Do we really think that the same people who rebuilt Japan into a modern day economic powerhouse were totally unaware of supply chains and resources... Despite the imperial Japanese reasoning to go to war with the USA to the public was sanctions on that very same looting?

[Montmorency]

We won, so we can afford to say such things.

But it is quite clear that neither side can claim moral superiority in this.

When invaded as per Okiniawa they fought to the death or hurled themselves off cliffs.

So that kind of blunts the utility of blockades or invasion if they are all going to kill themselves.

Huh, if that's the case, then why didn't we just wait for them to off themselves like lemmings?

Okinawans committed suicide en masse because they had been convinced by the Japanese that the invaders would rape and murder them. Which, to a certain extent, they actually did.

They didn't do it merely to mess with the Americans.

[Brenus]

“But it is quite clear that neither side can claim moral superiority in this”: On what?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Yes the Axis started the Total War aspects by killing surrended civilians.

The massacres were happening by the Japanese in Asia.

USA responded with sanctions.

Japan decided to respond with Pearl Harbour.

Nan King alone lost in the region of 300,000 civilians post surrender. Add in the Japanese military ran brothel which systmatically detained woman and then raped them.

These happened before Pearl Harbour.

So total war and begun by Japan

There reaction to blockades and sanctions was to escalate the violence.

When invaded as per Okiniawa they fought to the death or hurled themselves off cliffs.

So that kind of blunts the utility of blockades or invasion if they are all going to kill themselves.

=][=

Also I don't buy the argument that a military life is less then a civilian.

How can a fifty year businessman profiting off getting cheap resources from a society gaining these by looting, pillaging, raping and murdering their way through neighboring countries have a life valued higher then a twenty year old kid defending his family, home and nation from such aggressors?

The Japanese civilians happily enjoyed the fruits of their society pillaging until sanctions were put in place. Instead of backin off that same society started a war with the US. Innocence card cannot be played if you are receiving stolen goods, so how can it be applied when it was entire nations that were looted?

"no guv, I didn't notice that we invaded Korea, China, Phillipines, Indonesia.!"

"So how do you explain the large jars of Kim Chi, the Chinese Porcelain fro
China, the oil from South East Asia all at very low prices?"

"well we umm well"

Yeah they were all totally unaware of were the loot was coming from. Do we really think that the same people who rebuilt Japan into a modern day economic powerhouse were totally unaware of supply chains and resources... Despite the imperial Japanese reasoning to go to war with the USA to the public was sanctions on that very same looting?

the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people.They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands. Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis. The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself. One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.They had the war effort to deal with first.As I have told time and time again,the Japanese would never submit to anybody,unless precautions were taken,the nuke bomb was one:(,and Japan was never saved from America. America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it

And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .

Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.

[Papewaio]

And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .

Surely a death is a death is a death. Nukes killed less people then an invasion was projected to do (Okiniwa had lots of citizens on it, Iwo Jima was more of an atoll with a hill on it, not a huge amount of civilians). What is worrying is that most people ignore that the nuclear attacks were pre-surrender.

Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.

Less Brutal? Interesting definition. Surely having systematic brothels housed by captured sex slaves run by the military for the comfort of their soldiers is a pretty brutal start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...ogical_warfare

The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:

It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[30]

According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[31] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[32] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[33] After March 20, 1943, the Japanese Navy was under orders to execute all prisoners taken at sea.[34]

Then the likes of the Nanking Massacre

The casualty count of 300,000 was first promulgated in January 1938 by Harold Timperley, a journalist in China during the Japanese invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses.[citation needed] Other sources, including Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, also conclude that the death toll reached 300,000. In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government show that a telegraph of U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanjing, stating that he heard Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking.[75]

Not the numbers aren't during battle, these are post surrender numbers. Now are conventional weapons or atomics worse?

Two Japanese soldiers have climbed over the garden wall and are about to break into our house. When I appear they give the excuse that they saw two Chinese soldiers climb over the wall. When I show them my party badge, they return the same way. In one of the houses in the narrow street behind my garden wall, a woman was raped, and then wounded in the neck with a bayonet. I managed to get an ambulance so we can take her to Kulou Hospital ... Last night up to 1,000 women and girls are said to have been raped, about 100 girls at Ginling College Girls alone. You hear nothing but rape. If husbands or brothers intervene, they're shot. What you hear and see on all sides is the brutality and bestiality of the Japanese soldiers.[46]

On December 13, about 30 soldiers came to a Chinese house at #5 Hsing Lu Koo in the southeastern part of Nanking, and demanded entrance. The door was open by the landlord, a Mohammedan named Ha. They killed him immediately with a revolver and also Mrs. Ha, who knelt before them after Ha's death, begging them not to kill anyone else. Mrs. Ha asked them why they killed her husband and they shot her. Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her 1 year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby was killed with a bayonet. Some soldiers then went to the next room, where Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74, and her two daughters aged 16 and 14. They were about to rape the girls when the grandmother tried to protect them. The soldiers killed her with a revolver. The grandfather grasped the body of his wife and was killed. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2–3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed in her vagina. The younger girl was bayoneted also but was spared the horrible treatment that had been meted out to her sister and mother. The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7–8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha's two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword.[50]

Pregnant women were a target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the stomach, sometimes after rape. Tang Junshan, survivor and witness to one of the Japanese army’s systematic mass killings, testified:

The seventh and last person in the first row was a pregnant woman. The soldier thought he might as well rape her before killing her, so he pulled her out of the group to a spot about ten meters away. As he was trying to rape her, the woman resisted fiercely ... The soldier abruptly stabbed her in the belly with a bayonet. She gave a final scream as her intestines spilled out. Then the soldier stabbed the fetus, with its umbilical cord clearly visible, and tossed it aside.[51]

One city, and not unusual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...cond_World_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandakan_Death_Marches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changde..._weapon_attack

During the Khabarovsk War Crimes Trials, some witnesses, such as Major General Kiyashi Kawashima, testified that, as early as November 1941, about 40 members of Unit 731 airdropped fleas contaminated with bubonic plague on Changde and that this caused outbreaks of plague epidemics. Overall, 7,643 Chinese died in 1942 following this infestation.[9] Some Japanese soldiers, notably Yoshio Shinozuka, also admitted to have spread bubonic plague within a 36-kilometer (22 mi) radius around the city. However, the Japanese actions did not achieve their objective, as the Chinese defenders continued to resist.

In the intense fighting, Japanese forces could not overcome heavy Chinese resistance, so they decided to have Unit 516 fire poison gas artillery shells, possibly contained mustard gas or lewisite, into the city. Unit 516 and other units used assorted chemicals in liquid or gaseous form, including mustard gas, lewisite, cyanic acid gas and phosgene, experimentally and sometimes operationally. This was effective in spreading fear, terror and death with devastating effect against both humans and livestock.

=][=

End of the day relationships both Love and War are recipricol. The easiest way to answer the question were the way the Allies utilised the Atomics good or bad is to see how the recipricol relation would have worked.

WWJD?

What Would Japan Do? Well they would have dropped the nukes and then some, plus the plague.

Then after surrender they would have killed a quarter of the civilian population, raped the majority of the women, killed the pregant women in games of chance, beheaded men as a sports event and killed 90%+ of the prisoners of war who were Asian. This is based purely on their standard operating procedure in Asia.