Churchill is partly right

[natedogg]

jaxmike's and natedog's ethics is extremely repulsive to me. The Japanese civilians didn’t start the war, so how can murdering them be justified. If they’re not responsible, then what makes it justified?

For one, I think you misunderstand my position, and certainly you misunderstand my ethics. The civilians killed in Japan and Germany did NOT deserve to die. And killing them for the sake of slaughter would be morally abhorrent. But to quote a great movie, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". And the allies did not orchestrate civilian deaths for the sake of slaughter.

If you don't value your own people more than the enemy, why are you even fighting in the first place? At some point you owe it to your own soldiers to effect a peace as quickly as possible, but in a way that provides a secure future for your nation. To leave the facsist beast smoldering would have been folly. The entire war was the result of accepting peace in WWI before eliminating the militarists in Germany... Can you really blame the Allies for wanting to avoid that mistake again at all costs?!

Bombing the hell out of Japan shortened the war. Unconditional surrender paved the war for peace and prosperity in the future. Life sucks.

Other courses of action would have had different costs and I'm sure you'd be ranting against the USA right now for 'getting in bed with fascist dictators when it was convenient'.

It's SOOOOO easy to be an armchair general 60 years later isn't it?

Two, if I find some quotes from prominent leaders who voice support for my position, does that help my case? If not then you should realize the fallacy of using your own quotes to bolster your point. (Especially Douglas MacArther who was a petulant prima-donna on the outs with Truman... his is a suspect analysis to say the least.)

I still contend that if you can't see the moral difference between a terrorist attack like 9/11 perpetrated by the like of Mohammed Atta, and the actions taken during wartime by a nation defending itself against Fascist aggression .... then YOU are the one whose ethics are questionable.

I have a strong suspicion you'd come out more harshly against 9/11-type terrorist attacks if it had not happened to the USA.

natedogg

[Zeno]

Interesting article:

The Decision that Launched the Endola Gay, Air Force Magazine, April, 1994

Excerpts from the article:

Through July and into August, Japan continued to hope it could negotiate terms, including concessions for control of the armed forces and the future of its military leaders. The passage of time and the repeated publication of pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki have transformed Japan's image to that of victim in World War II. In the 1940s, Japan's image was different.

The Allies had imposed unconditional surrender on Germany. The United States was not inclined to make deals with the Japanese regime responsible for Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, the forced labor camps, habitual mistreatment of prisoners of war, and a fifteen-year chain of atrocities stretching from Manchuria to the East Indies.


Options

Basically, President Truman and the armed forces had three strategic options for inducing the Japanese surrender:

Continue the firebombing and blockade. After the war, the Strategic Bombing Survey would conclude that without the atomic bomb or invasion, Japan would have accepted unconditional surrender, probably by November and definitely by the end of the year. In 1945, however, the AAF was not able to persuade General Marshall that this strategy would work.

Invasion.

Neither Marshall nor Truman was convinced that LeMay's B-29 bombing campaign could bring a prompt end to the war. In their view, the only conventional alternative was invasion.

Use the atomic bomb.

Within a few years after World War II, the specter of global nuclear war (combined with visions of Hiroshima) would imbue the bomb with special horror. In 1945, the perspective was different. Doubts about use of the atomic bomb were mostly of a strategic nature, reflecting the belief that an invasion might not be necessary or that bombing and blockade would be sufficient. (Use of the bomb to end the war eventually saved Japanese casualties, too. The incendiary bombs from B-29s were taking a terrible toll. The attack on Tokyo in March killed more people than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs.)

Truman was acutely aware that hesitation would be paid for in blood. The Japanese refusal to surrender led to 48,000 American casualties in the battle for Okinawa between April and June. Kamikaze attacks in that battle sank twenty-eight US ships and did severe damage to hundreds more. The Japanese force on Okinawa was only a fraction the size of the one waiting in the home islands.

************************************************** ****


The unit that would deliver the atomic bombs, the 509th Composite Group, had been organized in 1944. Crews were hand-picked by the commander, Col. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. In the early morning hours of August 6, the Enola Gay, flown by Tibbets, took off from Tinian. The primary target was Hiroshima, the seventh largest city in Japan, an industrial and military shipping center on the Inland seacoast of Honshu. At precisely 8:16 a.m., the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. More than half of the city was destroyed in a flash, and about 80,000 people were killed.

Reaction by the Japanese Cabinet was split between the war faction and the peace faction. With the cabinet at an impasse, Hirohito took a more assertive position. On August 8, the Emperor instructed Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to tell Prime Minister Suzuki that Japan must accept the inevitable and terminate the war with the least possible delay and that the tragedy of Hiroshima must not be repeated.

Anami could not bring himself to flatly defy the Emperor, but he continued to argue his position passionately. Hard-liners in the military were plotting to kill Suzuki and others of the peace faction. Anami was not part of the plot -- although his brother-in-law, Masahiko Takeshita, was a ringleader.


************************************************** ****

"Bear the Unbearable"

Japanese deliberation on August 9 lasted all day and into the night. At a cabinet meeting that began at 2:30 p.m. -- hours after the second atomic bomb had fallen -- Anami said, "We cannot pretend to claim that victory is certain, but it is far too early to say the war is lost. That we will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan is certain, and it is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favor, pulling victory out of defeat." Finally, at 2:00 a.m. on August 10, the Emperor told the Big Six meeting (the Supreme War Council) that "the time has come to bear the unbearable" and that "I give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied Proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister."

At 4:00 a.m., the cabinet adopted a message for radio transmission to Allied powers, saying in part: "The Japanese Government [is] ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler."

The Allied response August 11 said that the "authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers" and that "the Emperor shall authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese General Headquarters of the surrender terms."


V-J Day

The Anami faction continued to haggle, but at noon on August 14, the Emperor asked the cabinet to prepare an Imperial Rescript of Surrender. He said that "a peaceful end to the war is preferable to seeing Japan annihilated." The plotters engaged in various disruptive actions in the hours that followed, but it was over. At 11:30 p.m. the Emperor recorded his radio message for broadcast the following day. General Anami, preferring to die rather than see Japan surrender, committed seppuku at 5:00 a.m., August 15.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, broadcast at noon on August 15, Emperor Hirohito said, "Despite the best that has been done by everyone -- the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people -- the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. [Emphasis added.]

"Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."


__________________________________________________ ______


One reason I posted the above excerpts is to show that the article is fairly balanced. Note that the author concedes that the Japanese probably would have surrendered later in the year without the use of the Atomic bomb - but at the cost of a blockade and continued firebombing of cities. The firebombing was very deadly and probably would have killed more people than the two Atomic Bombs that were dropped. Not to mentioned that a blockade would add to Japanese citzens overall misery.

Another very interesting and important factor to all this is the War Faction within the Japanese Military Command that wished to continue the fight, even after the two Atomic Bombs were dropped. The fanaticism of some of the High Command within the Japanese Military is reveled in this intransient stance in addition to their plot to kill some important ministers.

Note also: 'The plotters engaged in various disruptive actions in the hours that followed, but it was over."

This refers to an attempt by the war faction to destroy the wax discs that held the Emperor's record broadcast about the decision to surrender. Some senior offices did in fact take as prisoners some of the Emperor’s aides (and killed a few also, I believe) in this attempt, but fortunately it failed.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"Bombing the hell out of Japan shortened the war."

It didn't. The escalating costs and risks to the population hardly mattered in Japanese decision making. If they had, Japanese leaders would have moved rapidly to end the war when the massive an devastating incendiary raids began in March. Japanese leaders agreed to surrender not because civilians were at risk or had been killed but because the home islands were vulnerable to American invasion. The army was dominant in Japanese decision making and it paid absolutely no attention to cilivan vulnerability or deaths, even after the atomic bomb.

The collapse of Japan's war economy did hasten surrdender, but the bombing was not responsible. It was the sea blockade which crippled Japan's ability to produce and equip the forces necessary to execute its war strategy.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
In order for a nation to be as morally culpable as Mohammed Atta, it would have to go to war FOR THE PURPOSE of killing civilians and causing as much mayhem as possible out of hatred and anger. I don't recall that my country has ever done that.

[/ QUOTE ] I trust that we are both knowledgeable enough about the ways of the world, otherwise going over the elementary stuff would get boring pretty soon.

Organised states have routinely used terror against both their own citizenry (to keep 'em down) and other states' civilians (to scare them into submission).

As I said, I happen to have placed an order for a book on the subject of the British colonialists (intentionally, of course) engaging in murder, torture and pillage towards the "restless natives". Centuries ago? Nope, in the 1950s, in Kenya. Have a look see, if you fancy. This is a British officer reminiscing:

...They wouldn’t say a thing, of course, and one of them, a tall coal-black bastard, kept grinning at me, real insolent. I slapped him hard, but he kept right on grinning at me, so I kicked him in the balls as hard as I could. He went down in a heap but when he finally got up on his feet he grinned at me again and I snapped, I really did. I stuck my revolver right in his grinning mouth and I said something, I don’t remember what, and I pulled the trigger. His brains went all over the side of the police station. The other two Mickeys were standing there looking blank. I said to them that if they didn’t tell me where to find the rest of the gang I’d kill them too. They didn’t say a word so I shot them both. One wasn’t dead so I shot him in the ear. When the sub-inspector drove up, I told him that the Mickeys tried to escape. He didn’t believe me but all he said was ‘bury them and see the wall is cleared up.’

The same thing routinely happens when any world power wants to subdue another country: ripping out the will to even think about resisting (or helping resisters) is a basic tenet of military strategy and it translates to hitting the civilian populace. I do not see where's the difficulty in understanding this -- or recalling historical examples that involve the United States merrily snuffing civs (the Philippines, Santo Domingo, Phoenix in 'Nam, etc etc).

I will not even bring up the "easy" one about carpet bombing civilians by the hundreds of thousands in World War II; too trivial...

PS : There is no "hatred and anger" in these tactics. Why do you bring up feelings? This is not about feelings.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Allowing the emperor to live after we achieved total surrender of Japan, was [a] brilliant move and probably crucial to the future peace and prosperity of the region.

Allowing the Fascist leadership to save face in front of their people and their emperor would have been a bad move.

I don't know how much more plainly to put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could start by explaining how it was perfectly acceptable to allow, after their capitulation, precisely what the "fascist leadership" was asking, ie retaining the Emperor. But it was not acceptable to allow the Japanese to surrender AND keep their emperor.

Perhaps you could then elaborate about the relative importance of "saving face", so important, according to you, as to merit the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians -- the death of whom you otherwise lament...

[andyfox]

He seemed a bit nervous. He wasn't very articulate. Maher asked him twice about hte "little Eichmanns" statement and he mumbled something about technocrats in service of the state. Then Maher brought out a brother of a 9/11 victim who was quite eloquent. But the segemnt was not teribly interesting.

[Beavis68]

Does Churchill make not distinction between a decleared war, and undeclared attacks by maniacs that are not attached to any nation?

[natedogg]

Perhaps you could start by explaining how it was perfectly acceptable to allow, after their capitulation, precisely what the "fascist leadership" was asking, ie retaining the Emperor. But it was not acceptable to allow the Japanese to surrender AND keep their emperor.

Perhaps you could then elaborate about the relative importance of "saving face", so important, according to you, as to merit the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians -- the death of whom you otherwise lament...


I've explained already. Perhaps you disagree. That's fine. But I think you're wrong.

One last time: The Fascist leadership had to be utterly defeated. They had to surrender unconditionally. Letting the emperor live or die was moot once we had the capitulation that included the emperor, so failing to hang him hardly proves your point. The key was to expose him to the gallows as a result of the Fascist leadership's utter defeat. Anything less could have paved the way for a Fascist resurgence in post-war Japan. That emperor was practiclly a god, a very powerful symbol. The utter defeat was important not only for the USA but ALSO the future of the region, and Japan itself. Things have turned out well for Japan haven't they?

The Allies were understandably very concerned about leaving any room at all for Fascism to rise again, and they didn't want to repeat the mistakes they made with Germany after WWI. Those mistakes ended up costing quite a bit.

If they had defeated Germany utterly in 1918, perhaps we'd all be listening to today's pacifists condemning America and Britain for not accepting an incomplete surrender then and pursuing a war to the finish that killed innocent civilians ....


I hardly blame the allies for demanding unconditional surrender in light of their experiences...

That is all.

natedogg

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
It's SOOOOO easy to be an armchair general 60 years later isn't it?

Two, if I find some quotes from prominent leaders who voice support for my position, does that help my case? If not then you should realize the fallacy of using your own quotes to bolster your point. (Especially Douglas MacArther who was a petulant prima-donna on the outs with Truman... his is a suspect analysis to say the least.)

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> I quote leading US militaries and officials, like the General of the US Army. What is more relevant, a quote from General Eisenhower or one from you, telling it like it is? Others can judge who the armchair general is.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
The entire war was the result of accepting peace in WWI before eliminating the militarists in Germany [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

You don’t seem to care much about actual history. This is another example. The reason for that war was not that the winners accepted an easy peace, but the very opposite. From Wikipedia:

”Treaty of Versailles: The Treaty can be said to be the single most important, indirect cause of the war. It placed the blame, or "war guilt" solely upon Germany. Secondly, harsh reparations imposed by the treaty hampered the German economy by causing rapid hyperinflation (the Weimar Republic printed trillions to help pay off its debts) and caused people to support authoritarian parties like the Nazis and the Communists. In Germany, the Treaty forced the country to limit its armed forces to 100,000, forbade it having an airforce, demilitarized the Rhineland, a region in western Germany next to France, and placed the Saar region under the League of Nations' control. These restrictions not only hampered the German economy (the Saar region, though small, was fairly industrialized) but also created bitter resentment towards the victors of the First World War within Germany making it easy to whip up popular sentiment against the Western Allies. A part of that resentment was that many Germans felt that they had never been truly defeated in battle since the country had never been conquered; many felt that the German government had agreed to an armistice on the understanding that Wilson's Fourteen Points would be used as a guideline for the peace treaty. However, the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent peace treaties disregarded the Fourteen Points in many instances.”

[natedogg]

There is no "hatred and anger" in these tactics. Why do you bring up feelings? This is not about feelings.

I'm talking about intention, not feelings. It appears you do not agree with me that intent has everything to do with the morality of an action.

Ignoring intent makes this all moot.

But intent is important, and most humans understand that. That's why there is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. The same notion applies to the difference between Tokyo 45 and 9/11... Tokyo 45 may not have been a shining moment in America's history, but it was no 9/11. The reasons are practically self-evident.

For most at least.

natedogg