What is a good antidote to the lies that the atomic bombs in Japan were necessary?

[☭World Views]

Want are some good references to destroy the credibility of the capitalist apologists that seem to think that nuking Japan was the only way to "stop WWII and "save lives".

The entire USA campaign in the Pacific can be called into question.

[Kamerat]

Japan was no threat by then to anyone. The Japanese Imperial Navy was no more. After USA took Japans pacific islands and USSR took Manchuria and Korea they could blocked Japan untill they had surrendered.


Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

[ComradeOm]

Want are some good references to destroy the credibility of the capitalist apologists that seem to think that nuking Japan was the only way to "stop WWII and "save lives"Try the fact that it didn't work. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa argues in Racing the Enemy that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which, aside from being devastating effective, ended all hope of a negotiated settlement) that forced the Japanese to accept an unconditional surrender

[yuon]

Try the fact that it didn't work. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa argues in Racing the Enemy that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which, aside from being devastating effective, ended all hope of a negotiated settlement) that forced the Japanese to accept an unconditional surrender

Quite.

Indeed, I've seen convincing arguments that the use of the atom bombs was not to force Japan to surrender as such. But rather, to demonstrate, to the USSR, the yanks ability to produce such awesome weapons.

The USSR had by that stage entered the war, and would easily have been able to invade mainland Japan given enough time, something that the yanks really didn't want.

So, the use of the atom bombs was not so much to force a Japanese surrender (though, it probably made it quicker), but to warn off the USSR. (There had, of course, been talk of the red menace since the revolution, it had only been put on hold during the war.)

[KC]

I've argued on another forum with extensive evidence that supports the assertion that Japan would have surrendered without the dropping of the atomic bombs.


There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

US Strategic Bombing Survey (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw)


Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur comunication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

FULL STORY (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html)

DISCLAIMER:
And in case you don't believe this article is valid (as the IHR is a noted revisionist organization), here it is (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/475703002.html?dids=475703002:475703002&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug+19%2C+1945&author=WALTER+TROHAN&pub=Chicago+Daily+Tribune+%281872-1963%29&edition=&startpage=1&desc=BARE+PEACE+BID+U.+S.+REBUFFED+7+MONTHS+AGO) in the archives of the Chicago Tribune.

The Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender on the grounds that they could retain the emperor; the US was not interested in anything other than unconditional surrender, and did not even attempt to open up negotiations on the subject.

I don't think it is possible to conclusively say that the Japanese for sure would have surrendered if the bombs were not dropped (as this is really an alternate history question, and like all alternate history questions there are so many unknowns that it is impossible to accurately say. However, what we can for sure state with confidence is that the Japanese did make several attempts to open up discussions for a conditional surrender, and the allies refused to even entertain the notion. We also know that a Soviet invasion of the mainland, which is what Stalin supported for a while, was denied by the rest of the allies because they did not want Soviet influence to spread to Japan. These effectively disprove the idea that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan as necessary.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Quite.

Indeed, I've seen convincing arguments that the use of the atom bombs was not to force Japan to surrender as such. But rather, to demonstrate, to the USSR, the yanks ability to produce such awesome weapons.

The USSR had by that stage entered the war, and would easily have been able to invade mainland Japan given enough time, something that the yanks really didn't want.

So, the use of the atom bombs was not so much to force a Japanese surrender (though, it probably made it quicker), but to warn off the USSR. (There had, of course, been talk of the red menace since the revolution, it had only been put on hold during the war.)

Pretty much this, only I think they dropped the bombs because they knew the war was pretty much over, and wanted to send the USSR a message that their tanks wouldn't roll into Western Europe without them blowing the shit out of Russia with atomic bombs. The Red Army was far from tired by the end of the war, and they could have easily overtaken British, American and other allied forces who were not as experienced or battle-hardened as Red Army troops and commanders who had fought prolonged city battles like Stalingrad and Budapest, and massive field operations like Kursk (the largest tank battle of all time).

In short, the atom bombs were pretty much dropped as an extension of American foreign policy, which foresaw the coming Cold War with the Soviet Union.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Tearing off someones leg to avoid cutting there toenails. .

[KC]

Pretty much this, only I think they dropped the bombs because they knew the war was pretty much over, and wanted to send the USSR a message that their tanks wouldn't roll into Western Europe without them blowing the shit out of Russia with atomic bombs. The Red Army was far from tired by the end of the war, and they could have easily overtaken British, American and other allied forces who were not as experienced or battle-hardened as Red Army troops and commanders who had fought prolonged city battles like Stalingrad and Budapest, and massive field operations like Kursk (the largest tank battle of all time).

In short, the atom bombs were pretty much dropped as an extension of American foreign policy, which foresaw the coming Cold War with the Soviet Union.

I think that this is pretty much equally as misinformed and ignorant as the opinion that dropping the bombs was necessary, and really borders on conspiracy. The reason the bombs were dropped was not because they wanted to bare their teeth at the USSR but rather because dropping the bombs by far offered them the best possible outcome from their position. It made Japan surrender on their terms and ultimately made them subservient to the allies (excluding the Soviets, obviously), both politically and economically and it prevented the Soviet Union from extending its influence into the region.

From a political point of view it was nothing but positives. Disregarding the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dying, of course.

[Black Dagger]

The reason the bombs were dropped was not because they wanted to bare their teeth at the USSR but rather because dropping the bombs by far offered them the best possible outcome from their position. It made Japan surrender on their terms and ultimately made them subservient to the allies (excluding the Soviets, obviously), both politically and economically and it prevented the Soviet Union from extending its influence into the region.


Whilst i agree there is a degree of speculation inherent in this argument concerning the USSR (also teleology - as if the US generals and administration predicted the cold war playing out the way it did, and thus took pre-emptive action etc.) what you're saying here seems to arguing much the same thing from a different angle.

Basically, you've explained - correctly - that japan was in a tactically unwinnable position - with japan's territorial gains in asia and the pacific have been wiped out by the allies, japan proper would have become essentially a dumping ground for allied bombers ad infinitum - encircled by the allied navy with no possible retreat.

So I don't see how it can be argued that the above situation did not already put the allies in an extremely favourable position, enabling them to push japan to surrender "on their terms and [to] ultimately [make] them subservient to the allies, both politically and economically".

Basically, the bomb put the US in the driver's seat RE: overseeing Japan's surrender
and reconstruction. It is probably too much to argue as Pavlov did above that the bombs were 'really' just a show to the USSR, a scare tactic - though that may certainly have been a part of it - rather it was a strategic economic/political move - in the interests of the US (and by extension - since the USSR/US already had already begun jostling - hostile to the interests of the USSR - anyone know of sources dealing with soviet plans for japan?), something you mentioned yourself, "and it prevented the Soviet Union from extending its influence into the region."

So yeah, i'm not sure if i disagree with your claim (i.e. that the bombs were dropped because they offered the US the best possible outcome), but with the downplaying/dismissal of the relevance of the imperialist struggle between the USSR and the US.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This issue provides a great opportunity to uncover cappie hypocrisy:

If killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to end WW2 is justified, then you are saying the ends justify the means.

If the ends justify the means, then you lose the right to criticize Stalin or any other leader who suppressed civil liberties in order to achieve some higher purpose.

[Black Dagger]

Whilst it is hypocritical for the US government to criticise the 'civil rights' record other countries (particularly if we are talking about US rhetoric on the USSR during the 50s/60s - a time when the US was engaged in severe domestic repression) - though the same could be said of all states, all governments - it's still justified to criticise Stalin.

What you're suggesting is not probably not done deliberately, but it comes off (well to me) as a sort of a backwards way of defending Stalin. Like it's precisely the kind of argument that an apologist of Stalin's regime would make (not accusing you of being pro-stalin or whatever), to distract from attacks on him - point to the deeds of others - of stalin's critic's - and show how the critics themselves are hypocrites etc. It's an effective strategy when arguing against US nationalists (and the like), but the point i'm making is - why defend Stalin at all? (even by proxy)

[KC]

Basically, the bomb put the US in the driver's seat RE: overseeing Japan's surrender
and reconstruction.

You know, I just wrote a pretty long response to your earlier statements and then got to this one and deleted it all. This is exactly what I was asserting. :)

Also, it should be noted that a surrender by the Japanese to the allies would inevitably involve the Soviets in the negotiations, which would have allowed them to exert some form of influence over the proceedings and increase their influence in the region. Japan actually sent numerous requests to the Soviets to open up negotiations on a conditional surrender.


On 12 July--the day after advising Ambassador Sato [sic] of Japan's desire to "make use of Russia in ending the war"--Foreign Minister Togo dispatched the following additional message on the subject, labelled "very urgent":

...

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire for the welfare of all humanity to restore peace with all possible speed.

"The emperor's will, as expressed above, arises not only from his benevolence toward his own subjects but from his concern for the welfare of humanity in general. It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a Special Envoy with a letter from him containing the statements given above. Please inform Molotov of this and get the Russians' consent to having the party enter the country...

"Magic"-Diplomatic Summary - 13 July 1945 (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/31.pdf)
Ultra Top Secret - Declassified 7/20/05

Some more random info, from a post I made on another forum (http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/25816-chavez-loses-vote-16.html#post1057477122):


Does Dwight Eisenhower not know what he's talking about?

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Or Fleet Admirial Chester Nimitz, Commander In Chief of the US Pacific Fleet?

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

Or Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman?

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Or the United States Strategic Bombing Survey?

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

There are numerous others who are in agreement with the previous statements, including General Douglas MacArthur, General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard.

Are all these people "liars" who "don't know what [they're] talking about"?

[kellster102292]

I also think that a reason for the bombs was that the united states didn't want to loose anymore men, and plus if they sent in more men they would be fighting on foreign land. They would have had to deal with mountain fighting that the United States could not match. At least this is what they tell me out of my high school text book, but who knows what they are feeding me out of it.