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

[TinCow]

Japan had agreed to our surrender terms, but insisted they had to keep their emperor. We denied them that, massacred their populace, and then agreed to the exact same terms anyway!

That's not quite accurate. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender at Potsdam. The Japanese refused because they wanted to ensure that the Emperor remained on the throne (amongst other conditions, many of which were also unacceptable to the Allies). After the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese agreed to the unconditional surrender. The decision to allow the Emperor to remain was made by the Allies after the surrender, it was not part of the surrender agreement. The Japanese did indeed change their minds about unconditional surrender between July 27th and August 15th. The fact that the Allies later decided it was in everyone's best interests to keep the Imperial system intact does not change the fact that Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombs and the Soviet invasion, and did agree to it afterwards.

[Fisherking]

I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.

Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.

Many people are unaware of the crimes of Imperial Japan. It was a very controversial decision to leave the Emperor on the throne and not to hold him responsible as well.

Overall Japan got off much lighter than Germany in regard to wartime atrocities.

There were indeed allied measures that I would class as criminal but that is outside the discussion.

I could only take the statement as an attempt to obfuscate what actually happened.

Saying that both sides were equally guilty is a gross misrepresentation.

[Vuk]

That's not quite accurate. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender at Potsdam. The Japanese refused because they wanted to ensure that the Emperor remained on the throne (amongst other conditions, many of which were also unacceptable to the Allies). After the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese agreed to the unconditional surrender. The decision to allow the Emperor to remain was made by the Allies after the surrender, it was not part of the surrender agreement. The Japanese did indeed change their minds about unconditional surrender between July 27th and August 15th. The fact that the Allies later decided it was in everyone's best interests to keep the Imperial system intact does not change the fact that Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombs and the Soviet invasion, and did agree to it afterwards.

Yes, but we nonetheless, after dropping the bombs agreed to the terms they asked for before the bombs were dropped.

As far as war crimes, one of the reasons we let most of their war criminals off scot-free (or just about) is because they gave us their research in return. That is something else I highly disagree with the US for doing. I think the attitude was that most of it was done to the Chinese, not us, and who cares about the Chinese.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As to Louis, I am appalled at your attitude.

And I, for one, will uncork a fine bottle of champagne tonight and raise a glass to the fine men who made an allied victory possible.

the murder of millions of civilians has nothing to do with your effort to win the war, only with your efforts to subjugate a populace or wipe out a race.

See, this sort of nonsense passing for history is what I mean when I say that revisionist history is in the process of replacing proper historical knowledge about WWII on the internet.

Too much exploration of the allied bombing campaigns, of allied war crimes. Apparantly, 'Versailles' and 'resources' left Germany and Japan respectively no choice but to wage war. The allies, in turn, fought to show off, to subjugate peoples, or to wipe out foreign races, committing many horrid atrocities along the way.
The impression exists that Japan and Germany suffered horrendously in a war they had no choice but to fight, all in an atmosphere of moral equivalence.

In reality, allied bombings caused not more than a few hundred thousand deaths. Three to four hundred thousand in both Japan and Germany. Well below a million for all the axis powers combined, for all of the war, for all theaters combined. About what Germany and Japan managed every few months in their camps alone.
By comparison, the Japanese death toll in French Indochina alone, a relative footnote of WWII, is 1,5 million. Triple the total amount of Japanese civilian casualties of any kind.



I'll raise one more glass to the hundreds of thousands of brave allied pilots who gave their lives in the bombing and air campaigns.

There's no such thing as not enough information.

It's good to know as much as possible.


It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".

It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.

[Vuk]

And I, for one, will uncork a fine bottle of champagne tonight and raise a glass to the fine men who made an allied victory possible.


See, this sort of nonsense passing for history is what I mean when I say that revisionist history is in the process of replacing proper historical knowledge about WWII on the internet.

Too much exploration of the allied bombing campaigns, of allied war crimes. Apparantly, 'Versailles' and 'resources' left Germany and Japan respectively no choice but to wage war. The allies, in turn, fought to show off, to subjugate peoples, or to wipe out foreign races, committing many horrid atrocities along the way.
The impression exists that Japan and Germany suffered horrendously in a war they had no choice but to fight, all in an atmosphere of moral equivalence.

In reality, allied bombings caused not more than a few hundred thousand deaths. Three to four hundred thousand in both Japan and Germany. Well below a million for all the axis powers combined, for all of the war, for all theaters combined. About what Germany and Japan managed every few months in their camps alone.
By comparison, the Japanese death toll in French Indochina alone, a relative footnote of WWII, is 1,5 million. Triple the total amount of Japanese civilian casualties of any kind.

I'll raise one more glass to the hundreds of thousands of brave allied pilots who gave their lives in the bombing and air campaigns.

Nonsense. No one said that the war against the axis was not justified, or that we were not in the right for fighting them. I believe this completely, but that does not mean that I am going to blind myself to crimes commited by our side with your child's book version of history. People on the good side can take advantage of that and do bad things. Unfortunately it happened. You are simply trying to ignore that and rewrite history as a nursery rhyme.

[Andres]

It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.

Maybe it's such lack of nuance that causes the progress of the opposite opinion on the internet.

[TinCow]

Yes, but we nonetheless, after dropping the bombs agreed to the terms they asked for before the bombs were dropped.

Not quite, in the sense that Japan never asked for those terms before August 10th. Prior offers from Japan earlier in the year had included more provisions than just the retention of the Emperor. Simply put, the Japanese did not give their counter-offer of unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, until the day after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion. Their only reply to the terms prior to the bombings was a total snub of the terms. If the Japanese had been prepared to accept unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, between July 26th and August 6th, they never communicated that to the Allies.

[Vuk]

Not quite, in the sense that Japan never asked for those terms before August 10th. Prior offers from Japan earlier in the year had included more provisions than just the retention of the Emperor. Simply put, the Japanese did not give their counter-offer of unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, until the day after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion. Their only reply to the terms prior to the bombings was a total snub of the terms. If the Japanese had been prepared to accept unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, between July 26th and August 6th, they never communicated that to the Allies.

hmmm...I read a book on MacArthur once that I believe said otherwise. I will have to find that.

[Fisherking]

It has become popular to take the side of the underdog and in their defeat the Axis Powers became the underdog.

Some people will gladly choose not to know what horrors their heroes have done or to blithely say it was justifies via moral relativism.

It seems to have escaped most of them that the Axis all started unprovoked wars of aggression on their neighboring states. Even that war is a glorious pursuit.

It is what they wish to believe to be the truth. However, in many cases belief has nothing to do with truth.

Given current moral values, justifying the bomb is a hard sell, but in the light of the times it was not the most difficult of choices.

If you took the moral view of say two or three hundred years before it would be difficult to justify not wiping them from the face of the earth for all eternity.

Or does no one see cannibalism as an abomination?

[Vuk]

It has become popular to take the side of the underdog and in their defeat the Axis Powers became the underdog.

Some people will gladly choose not to know what horrors their heroes have done or to blithely say it was justifies via moral relativism.

It seems to have escaped most of them that the Axis all started unprovoked wars of aggression on their neighboring states. Even that war is a glorious pursuit.

It is what they wish to believe to be the truth. However, in many cases belief has nothing to do with truth.

Given current moral values, justifying the bomb is a hard sell, but in the light of the times it was not the most difficult of choices.

If you took the moral view of say two or three hundred years before it would be difficult to justify not wiping them from the face of the earth for all eternity.

Or does no one see cannibalism as an abomination?

No one is justifying the axis powers via moral relativism. I believe in moral absolutes, and what the US may have done in no way lifts any blame from the Axis forces. It works the other way around too though. A US soldier going into a German or Italian village and raping a child is downright evil no matter what the Axis powers did.


And honestly, yes, I think that at times in history the adult and young adult population of countries deserved to be wiped out to the last person, but this was not such a case. The only time that an attack on a civilian populace can be right is when those civilians are so immoral, and so evil, and their practices so harmful to mankind and to yourself that letting them live would bring about your own destruction. That is a completely different argument though, and I am sure that me saying that may freak people out, but there were times in history when I would not have blamed a nation for doing this to another nation. None come to mind in the last 500 years, but still, you can hardly accuse me of moral relativism.

[Kralizec]

And honestly, yes, I think that at times in history the adult and young adult population of countries deserved to be wiped out to the last person, but this was not such a case.

Can you give a few examples?

[Vuk]

Can you give a few examples?

lol, I knew that was sure to raise a few eyebrows. I am afraid a further continuation of the discussion at hand, however, would serve only to further erode the already shaky foundation of pertinence from this thread, eventually cause a calamitous collapse at the hands of our esteemed shepherds, the noble moderators.

[Viking]

It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in 1955. I tend to pick the better side, because the good side I've yet to encounter.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I really don't understand why people keep saying you can't judge the event with "today's" morality or whatever. How can we have a discussion on history (besides dates of events) if we can't say "well that seemed like a pretty mean thing to do" or "that was probably the right thing"? How can we judge the Holocaust today if we don't use "today's" morality? Obviously plenty of people (at least German-occupied Europe) thought it was perfectly fine to murder the Jews and other minorities - or they wouldn't have done it! Similarly, obviously people thought strategic bombing was fine - because they did it!

I think the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime, because they killed thousands of individuals who may or may not have been responsible for the Japanese aggression. Ditto all strategic bombing, and all total war. The only thing really to be gained out of a discussion on morality in WW2 in my opinion is the US should've left the Euros to kill each other in WW1, and maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have come to this.

[Fisherking]

I really don't understand why people keep saying you can't judge the event with "today's" morality or whatever. How can we have a discussion on history (besides dates of events) if we can't say "well that seemed like a pretty mean thing to do" or "that was probably the right thing"? How can we judge the Holocaust today if we don't use "today's" morality? Obviously plenty of people (at least German-occupied Europe) thought it was perfectly fine to murder the Jews and other minorities - or they wouldn't have done it! Similarly, obviously people thought strategic bombing was fine - because they did it!

I think the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime, because they killed thousands of individuals who may or may not have been responsible for the Japanese aggression. Ditto all strategic bombing, and all total war. The only thing really to be gained out of a discussion on morality in WW2 in my opinion is the US should've left the Euros to kill each other in WW1, and maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have come to this.

Well, you see that discussing the past using the ruler of today leads you to only one conclusion.

The Human Race are a bunch of bloodthirsty butchers and should be wiped from the face of the earth.

So, what do we do? Who starts the killing?

Now, to get a clearer picture of what caused others to behave as they did we may need to use something akin to the same lens when looking at those events.

Understanding of their driving principals and their motives is what it is about. How else are you going to understand why our principals, if not our motives may have changed.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I think we can understand their motives and still find them wrong. The motive for the Holocaust is understandable - those propagating it thought they were bettering mankind, or at least their country. It's still despicable.

[Subotan]

moral absolutes

HAHAHAHA

you can hardly accuse me of moral relativism.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

[Vuk]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

It is. It is a position without a foundation. Principles have to be firmly rooted, otherwise you will just be like a piece of cloth blowing in the wind, knowing not where you are going.

[Subotan]

It is. It is a position without a foundation. Principles have to be firmly rooted, otherwise you will just be like a piece of cloth blowing in the wind, knowing not where you are going.

Right. Or, you could take the position that morals are non-existent, and only exist as a challenge to be overcome by humanity.

[Vuk]

Right. Or, you could take the position that morals are non-existent, and only exist as a challenge to be overcome by humanity.

Right, you could.
If we are getting philosophical however, it is my philosophical belief that if reality does not help you, it is possible and necessary for humans to develop their own sets of beliefs founded in reality that organizes things in a way that better helps themselves.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Right. Or, you could take the position that morals are non-existent, and only exist as a challenge to be overcome by humanity.

Which means you don't actually have anything to say about the topic at hand except "it happened." Thanks for playing.

[Beefy187]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.

Perhaps you are not acquainted with the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children perpetrated by the Japanese.

It surpassed the Germans in shear brutality and carelessness of human life if it did not surpass it in numbers.


I don’t believe that any of the allied nations ever had a massive campaign of rape, murder, torture, and extermination of civilians as part of their policies.

Start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Likely only the cannibalism had it happened 200 years earlier, would have been of note, but to say it was only wrong because they lost is a bit disgusting.


One crime does not excuse another but still with the scope and magnitude you can see why they had less qualms on using such a weapon on that particular enemy.

I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.

Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.

I meant what alh_p said. If I didn't get the message across that clearly, I apologize.
I have no intention of justifying what the Japanese did. But I'm saying... Things are not only black and white. Every country did something smiler in the past. Don't say Germans were the only Jewish hating country. Don't say Japan was the only imperialistic country who wanted to conquer everything in the world.

Some people even thank the Japanese for what they did. Starting with Republic of Palau.

[KingKnudthebloodthirsty]

Hey guys, thanks for all your replies! Anyways, I'm just wondering, if we didn't invade Japan but simply blockaded the islands and continue bombing them, won't they eventually collapse of starvation? Pretty much strangling the islands in a siege like manner. Japan was already on the brink of famine by the summer of 1945.

[A Very Super Market]

What is the argument there? First of all, the Soviets didn't answer to the Americans (Although I'm not sure if they had many transports in their Pacific fleet). Second, the whole argument against using the nukes, or the death toll associated, would be even greater if you decided to starve a densely populated nation into submission.

[Jolt]

What is the argument there? First of all, the Soviets didn't answer to the Americans (Although I'm not sure if they had many transports in their Pacific fleet). Second, the whole argument against using the nukes, or the death toll associated, would be even greater if you decided to starve a densely populated nation into submission.

Indeed, but the Soviets could still cross from Sakhalin to Hokkaido they had done before in the Kuril islands.

[Subotan]

Which means you don't actually have anything to say about the topic at hand except "it happened." Thanks for playing.

Did I say I agreed with that position?

[TinCow]

Hey guys, thanks for all your replies! Anyways, I'm just wondering, if we didn't invade Japan but simply blockaded the islands and continue bombing them, won't they eventually collapse of starvation? Pretty much strangling the islands in a siege like manner. Japan was already on the brink of famine by the summer of 1945.

At that point in the war, the US was very concerned with limiting Soviet expansion. Truman did not want the Soviets sharing the occupation of Japan like they were with Germany, so a quick resolution to the war was required. If the US just sat back and starved the place, the Soviets could have gobbled up a ton of territory with their own invasion. That was certainly one of many factors that contributed to the decision to drop the bomb. A lot of strategic planning in 1945 was made with the post-war situation in mind; this was true in both the European and Pacific theaters.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Did I say I agreed with that position?

In conjunction with the rest of your post, basically.

[Andres]

At that point in the war, the US was very concerned with limiting Soviet expansion. Truman did not want the Soviets sharing the occupation of Japan like they were with Germany, so a quick resolution to the war was required. If the US just sat back and starved the place, the Soviets could have gobbled up a ton of territory with their own invasion. That was certainly one of many factors that contributed to the decision to drop the bomb. A lot of strategic planning in 1945 was made with the post-war situation in mind; this was true in both the European and Pacific theaters.

So part of the reason to throw the bomb was because the US was in a hurry out of concern that the Soviets would take (part of) Japan?

Was taking revenge also part of the reason for throwing the bombs?

The reason that throwing the bomb to end the conflict quickly and thus making less casualties than a conventional invasion, is debatable, so it seems. Not to mention that some also seem that it wasn't necessary to invade either.

Would the Soviets have invaded Japan and would they have made more casualties than the two A-bombs? If the US would have limited themselves to just wait and blockade, what would the Soviets have done? Something equally bad as throwing two A-bombs? Or maybe even worse?

Or would it have been possible for the US and the Soviets to combine forces to blockade Japan and just wait until Japan capitulated (with a treaty that would have been conditional in name (to save honor and a few faces), but wouldn't have been in reality)? Was it possible at that time to come to a more humane decision by having the two new superpowers working together (instead of being rivals)?



So many questions about fascinating stuff... Makes me realise how little I know

[TinCow]

So part of the reason to throw the bomb was because the US was in a hurry out of concern that the Soviets would take (part of) Japan?

As far as I am aware, yes.

Was taking revenge also part of the reason for throwing the bombs?

I have never seen anything that indicates that revenge or any other non-strategic aspect factored into the decision.

Would the Soviets have invaded Japan and would they have made more casualties than the two A-bombs? If the US would have limited themselves to just wait and blockade, what would the Soviets have done? Something equally bad as throwing two A-bombs? Or maybe even worse?

The Soviets would have simply invaded... indeed the Soviets had already invaded Japan by the end of the war. They launched a massive attack on Manchuria on August 9th (the same day as Nagasaki) and overran the entire province and northern Korea within two weeks. They also occupied the Kuril islands and were close to invading Hokkaido by the time hostilities ceased. The seriousness of Soviet Occupation of these territories is demonstrated with Korea. The Soviets occupied Korea up to the 38th parallel, which is how the entire division of Korea into North and South began. Take a look at how Germany and Korea turned out, now imagine Japan being similarly divided.

Or would it have been possible for the US and the Soviets to combine forces to blockade Japan and just wait until Japan capitulated (with a treaty that would have been conditional in name (to save honor and a few faces), but wouldn't have been in reality)?

Certainly it would have been possible, but by that point the end result of the war was already known, even if the final date and cost was unknown. Both sides were very concerned about the post-war balance of power, and it factored into nearly every major strategic decision.

Was it possible at that time to come to a more humane decision by having the two new superpowers working together (instead of being rivals)?

I do not believe so. The clash between the Soviets/Communists and the West was inevitable. Indeed, it was inevitable even before WW2. The British and French were actively planning to send an expeditionary force to Finland to fight the Soviets in the winter of 1939/40. At that point, the Soviets were still seen as an enemy, despite the fact that the West was already at war with Germany. The only reason there was any temporary friendship between the Soviets and the West was because Germany became a common enemy in 1941. As soon as the common enemy was eliminated, the hostilities returned.