Untold History of the United States

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gotta love when neurosis sends some people.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hmmmm....to summarise the pro-bombing argument - "if we don't kill loads of civilians now, even more will die later. Maybe"

I don't find this entirely compelling.

The thing is, it might be true.

But it does have a bit of a "we're doing you a favour by dropping atomic bombs on you" ring to it...

How?

Some of the stuff CES wrote. It's written like the US gave a shit about the number of Jap casualties. They cared about US (and other ally) casualties, not Japanese casualties.

I think they cared mostly about US casualties, yes, and most likely - understandably so - really didn't think much about Japanese casualties. If you put yourself outside of the armchair and into the existential crisis where you were fighting the largest war in history, watching your friends die all around you, to defend the very existence of your country, by the end, you're likely to be more concerned with finishing the thing than hand-wringing over whether you're being too hard on the enemy. I grant you, there was no "too hard"on the Germans and the Japanese. They were going to get run the fuck over until they stopped their bullshit. Period. They started it - the Allies were going to finish it. And, don't just fucking say "the US" didn't give a shit about this or that -- if you're going to make that kind of statement, include the other allies -- the UK "didn't give a shit" -- Australia "didn't give a shit" and France "didn't give a shit." Be consistent. Well, unless you really think it's just the US that "doesn't give a shit."

It's not the intent that is the main issue -- it's the consequences. The FACT is that by dropping the bombs, the war ended and avoided the need for a ground invasion of Japan, or a blockade designed to starve the Japanese into submission. Either of those other two conventional options would, in my view, clearly -- hardly arguable -- would have resulted in far more deaths on both sides of the ball than the bombs.

The bombs -- it seems quite clear -- ended the war early. They were dropped on 8/6 and 8/9, the Soviets invaded Manchuria, and the Japanese announced surrender on August 15 and showed up on the Missouri in early September to capitulate officially. Before that, they were preparing for a last stand.

The one thing that all these vague references to attempts by this person or that person to discuss peace terms is this: if the Japanese wanted to surrender, nothing was stopping them. They didn't need the US or Allied permission to do it. All the government of Japan had to do was publicly announce unconditional surrender, send a communique' to the Allied forces in several locations, and start taking down their armaments publicly. Hoist white flags, and have done with it. Sending out feelers to see if the Allies would settle on some sort of negotiated peace "even on hard terms" is not the same thing. What they needed to do is what they did do on August 15. Publically announce that they were quits. Done. We're out. That's what they did, and when they did that, the war ended.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the US had actually been motivated by revenge they would have stood off and let them die in huge numbers.

[Svartalf]

Dunno if these guys are "proper" historians or not...

I like that this was not even given a response by those claiming the truth in myth. Proper historians have, in fact, pointed out that the bombing of Japan was unnecessary and that the whole claim that it was necessary is nothing but an american myth. Of couse, myths die hard for true patriots.

"Proper historians" being those of the left, naturally...

"Proper historians"?

You know, ones trained to parse through sources and properly assay how credible and relevant those sources are...

[pErvinalia]

oh dear... here we go again...

[Coito ergo sum]

If the Japanese really wanted to surrender on or before August 5, 1945, one question comes to mind.

Why didn't they surrender then?

Why didn't they just announce, like they did on August 15, that they surrendered unconditionally? It worked on August 15. Why wouldn't it have worked on August 5 or August 1, or July 27?

[klr]

To correct something I wrote earlier:

...
If the Japanese had wanted to negotiate - even when faced with an ultimatum - then they could have stated that at the time, without even going into specifics. They didn't say anything, nor were they going to. In fact, when they finally issued a response late on August 9th, it did represent a negotiating position, asking for very major concessions - which were very promptly rejected. Diplomacy can proceed very quickly if both sides want to talk.

As for narratives: Much of the evidence is properly documented in the form of meeting minutes (on both sides) and intercepts of Japanese cables. Compared to many other major historical events, it's actually very well documented.

Actually, this isn't true: Some of the hard-liners continued to look for major concessions at this point (the "four conditions"), and were intent on continuing the fight to the bitter end otherwise. They had effective power of veto. However, In a planned intervention, Hirohoto stated that he preferred the "single condition" option favoured by some others, on only preserving the position of the Emperor. The Potsdam Declaration had deliberately stayed silent on that point, allowing potential wiggle-room.

The Allies responded very quickly to the Japanese position by saying that while they were occupying Japan, they'd run things, and after that, it was up to the Japanese people to decide the role of the Emperor.

That should have been that, but it took another few days - and a second intervention by Hirohoto - to finally force acceptance of the Allied terms.

If the Japanese really wanted to surrender on or before August 5, 1945, one question comes to mind.

Why didn't they surrender then?

Why didn't they just announce, like they did on August 15, that they surrendered unconditionally? It worked on August 15. Why wouldn't it have worked on August 5 or August 1, or July 27?

Indeed. Or why did they not try and bargain before then, if they were not going to surrender unconditionally in the first instance?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Part of the problem with surrendering when they knew the war was lost was what's called "politics by assassination". Military men had no real issue with murdering "defeatists".

[Coito ergo sum]

Part of the problem with surrendering when they knew the war was lost was what's called "politics by assassination". Military men had no real issue with murdering "defeatists".

Which means, essentially, that while there may have been Japanese individuals who saw surrender as the way to go, those folks obviously were not the one's calling the shots until one or two additional "incentives" were dropped in their lap, so to speak. Then, suddenly, most everyone came around.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Part of the problem with surrendering when they knew the war was lost was what's called "politics by assassination". Military men had no real issue with murdering "defeatists".

Which means, essentially, that while there may have been Japanese individuals who saw surrender as the way to go, those folks obviously were not the one's calling the shots until one or two additional "incentives" were dropped in their lap, so to speak. Then, suddenly, most everyone came around.

They were covert at best, to avoid getting killed. When it became obvious Japan was well done Gen. Aranami came over to the "peace camp", giving them a chance to come out and declare themselves. Marquis Kido was probably the most important of these, he was the Privy Seal and the last Genro.

[sandinista]

I've made it clearly. Gawdzilla was having a good ol' laugh at Sandinista for using the term "proper historians". I stated that he should check who used that term first.

Actually, I did.

I know what a "proper historian" is. Sandinista has yet to quote any credible findings or commentary from anyone deserving of that label.

The point is, Gawdzilla thought he was the big man belittling Sandinista for using a silly term, when it turns out his ally in this debate used that term, and Sandi was taking the piss.

Oh, so you failed to make a point. Gotcha.

Are you on drugs? You took the piss out of Sandi, without realising that you were taking the piss out of your ally.

Thanks rEv, that had to be one of the funniest exchanges on the interweb I've ever read, I mean, shit, zilla has no problems looking the fool all on his own, but with you doing some back and forth, it was simply classic, I may revisit this thread from time to time for a good

Dunno if these guys are "proper" historians or not...

I like that this was not even given a response by those claiming the truth in myth. Proper historians have, in fact, pointed out that the bombing of Japan was unnecessary and that the whole claim that it was necessary is nothing but an american myth. Of couse, myths die hard for true patriots.

"Proper historians" being those of the left, naturally...

"Proper historians"?

You know, ones trained to parse through sources and properly assay how credible and relevant those sources are...

OMG, it's too much!

[Svartalf]

What? teaching grandma to suck eggs? maybe she needs a refresher?

[Coito ergo sum]

According to Stone, the Marshall Plan was designed to be a provocation toward the Soviets. The Soviets never blockaded Berlin. The 1961 Berlin crisis was caused by the US, and the great thing about the Berlin Wall was that it "diffused the immediate danger of war."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

According to Stone, the Marshall Plan was designed to be a provocation toward the Soviets. The Soviets never blockaded Berlin. The 1961 Berlin crisis was caused by the US, and the great thing about the Berlin Wall was that it "diffused the immediate danger of war."

"Harry S. Truman, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!"

[sandinista]

according to ces Castro is one of the worst "dictators" the world has ever seen.