[quote]pat wrote:
Wow guys, this has been enlightening. It’s always interesting to see things from the other side so to speak. So I guess the question is, if not the bomb, then what else would have been required to get the Japanese to surrender? Would a D-Day style attack have worked or would that have fought to the last man, woman and child? As far as I know, ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ was the whole of our nuclear arsenal. So technically the Japanese could have continued to fight on if they knew that, perhaps. [/quote]
To the Japanese of the day, surrender was thought a fate worse than death, and ALL were expected to resist the enemy.
[/quote]
How about if they had been ordered by their superiors to withdraw from conquered territory, with no official admission of “surrender”?
Sure, but were they going to send Japanese mothers and aunts and sisters to prevent pulling out of China?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s interesting that even until today, people debate whether the Bomb actually saved lives or not (it’s even been debated on this site).
Major Van Kirk has no doubt that lives were saved by avoiding a direct assault in the Main Islands.
[/quote]
Dropping the bomb or directly assaulting the Main Islands: were those really the only viable alternatives for ending the war in a realistically satisfactory manner? Or were those the only viable alternatives for getting “unconditional surrender”?
Would leaving the Japanese military in power on their home islands, with a peace deal that basically amounted to defeat for them albeit not “unconditional surrender”, have been such a bad thing that several million more human deaths were a sensible price to pay to get a more complete victory? Especially considering that the Japanese military government was not the only big evil left in the world?
[/quote]
I’m probably not going to get into it too much deeper than this, but, if you understood the mindset of the Japanese military government at that time, you would understand that UNCONDITIONAL surrender is absolutely the ONLY option available to us after getting into the war. There are still hold-offs calling for the reinstatement of the emperor today whose political “rallies” are enough to send chills down your spine. If they ever somehow take power here again, I will head strait back to Texas, never mind I’ve dedicated over 10 years of my life here and thus far I have no plans to return.
[/quote]
Japan was trying to obtain peace terms prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
What do you think are the best terms the U.S.A. could have gotten Japan to agree to: without dropping the atomic bomb and without invading the home islands? (I could be wrong, but I was under the impression the government of Japan was offering to pull out of all or almost all conquered territory.)
What do you think would have happened if the U.S.A. had taken the best offer we could get from Japan, without dropping the atomic bomb and without invading the home islands?
(I think a few years in the gulag would have sent a bigger chill down your spine, but somehow we managed to get by without sacrificing millions of lives to knock the Soviet Communists out of power in their own country.)
Maybe the Japanese military government was crazier and more dangerous than the Communists, at least in the short term, and they would have taken advantage of a peace deal to rebuild and go right back on the offensive again? In any case, I would be interested in seeing your views regarding #1 and #2 above. Thanks!
Regarding Pat’s assessment, I’d say you are both right and wrong. While the Japanese are indeed less forgiving of failure than many other cultures, there are a couple of unique, wonderful qualities they possess that counterbalance this tendency. They are, 1. an unmatched talent in innovating and improving any product or situation they are given and 2. Keeping their chin up despite failure, and keeping it up until it doesn’t want to go down again. My guess is that every single Japanese you saw at Pearl Harbor had nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for America, and were genuinely interested in history, same a you or I would feel upon a tour through one of the Atomic Bomb museums in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I genuinely believe this.
[/quote]
My only nitpick here, Cortes, is that I think that real ADULTS might fit your description, but there have been reports of young Japanese adults / kids being anything but respectful at the Arizona, etc. As I said, I know: I’m nitpicking. I only mention it because it has apparently caused some bad fellings there in the past. I think some of such behavior is born of not learning about the war in school. Many Japanese have told me that they knew almost nothing about Pearl Harbor until they became adults.
[/quote]
I was not aware of this and I guess I have been a bit naive about America-love not being quite a complete as I had thought. Your living where you do and your further proximity to the issue (trying not to give out too much personal information, please let me know if I need to reign it in) has certainly given you a more accurate view of what a cross section of the common Japanese person really feels. All the inaka-folks love me. I will say that I do get the creepy, totally shameless old-person stare now and then, which annoys the hell out of me.
How on earth did the tour guide relay that in a way that did not come off sounding rude? Was he American or Japanese?
In my experience, too, this is true, although more recently, SOME effort has been made to change this. It is at least better than it was, say 10 or 15 years ago.
BTW, piece of trivia that some might find interesting: There was poison gas factory in Hiroshima during the war. The gas was mostly directed at the Chinese, though some was also attached to hot-air ballons and put into the jet stream in the hopes of it reaching the US. You can still visit the remains of the factory – and see the display that bemoans the poor innocent JAPANESE victims who suffered from leaks, etc. Nothing about the Chinese, as far as I remember.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
They are called the “Peace” museums, and they serve as the model for what is taught to kids in the schools pretty much from the moment they begin elementary school: The dropping of the atomic bombs was the worst thing that has ever occurred in the history of the world, and there can never, ever be anything worse.
[/quote]
Exactly.
It almost has the flavor of a religion or something…
It is so bad that lifelong residents have almost “delusions of grandeur” when it comes to how the world sees Hiroshima.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
All of that would not be so bad but for the complete gutting of all necessary CONTEXT as to HOW all of this came to pass and WHY those decisions were finally made. So a walk through one of the museums will leave the informed student of history with a strange feeling that something important is missing. A we make our way though the museum, we walk through a scale model of pre- and post-bomb Hiroshima that rather obnoxiously indicates the locations of elementary schools while leaving the munitions factories up to the observer’s imagination. And before moving on to the next exhibit, we have to pass the mannequin elementary students with their clothes melting into their skin, here a cute zombie girl stumbles through a hellishly lit wasteland, trailed by her dying mother. And before the next stop, a story, of the little girl who got radiation poisoning, who folded thousands of origami cranes as prayers in the hope she might recover, but she didn’t. And now the thousand million billion trillion I don’t know how many orgami cranes that are folded and strung into massive strings by the elementary students from every school, who are invariably brought to Hiroshima and the museum as one of their mandatory school trips, who are fed all of this stuff without ever a follow-up word as to why, WHY!!! it really happened.
[/quote]
Ha ha ha!
You’ve described it well, my friend.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t have the time or space, but maybe this can give you some idea of why you cannot, 99% of the time, even begin to suggest that those bombs finally probably saved the lives of a huge swath of the Japanese poplulace at that time. Don’t you dare.
[/quote]
My experience here is a little different. So long as the person you are talking with is not a member of a hibakusha family, I have found a fair number of people to be fairly open to the discussion. In fact, I have at times even found a bit of resentment on the part of those folks regarding the “sacred” and “special” status of the hibakusha.
[/quote]
Very interesting. I still have much to learn, apparently.
Wow guys, this has been enlightening. It’s always interesting to see things from the other side so to speak. So I guess the question is, if not the bomb, then what else would have been required to get the Japanese to surrender? Would a D-Day style attack have worked or would that have fought to the last man, woman and child? As far as I know, ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ was the whole of our nuclear arsenal. So technically the Japanese could have continued to fight on if they knew that, perhaps. [/quote]
I dont know man…
If anyone else said to me “things have changed, and not entirely in our favor” I would think that we have a small problem that, with a little luck and work and whatnot…
Apparently, if a Japanese emperor says it, Gozilla is stomping Tokyo.
At the very least. [/quote]
You clearly lack an appreciation for the nuances of Japanese culture.
And, I’m still waiting for you to comment on your claims about my supposed “fake” language proficiency. How do you say, “I’m sorry for being an ass” in German? ;-)[/quote]
I’m going to sound like my mom or my wife for a moment and just say that both of you speak your respective second-languages at an extremely high level of proficiency.
And orion’s mastery of sarcasm and dry wit is enough that I often read his posts in anticipation of this.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s interesting that even until today, people debate whether the Bomb actually saved lives or not (it’s even been debated on this site).
Major Van Kirk has no doubt that lives were saved by avoiding a direct assault in the Main Islands.
[/quote]
Dropping the bomb or directly assaulting the Main Islands: were those really the only viable alternatives for ending the war in a realistically satisfactory manner? Or were those the only viable alternatives for getting “unconditional surrender”?
Would leaving the Japanese military in power on their home islands, with a peace deal that basically amounted to defeat for them albeit not “unconditional surrender”, have been such a bad thing that several million more human deaths were a sensible price to pay to get a more complete victory? Especially considering that the Japanese military government was not the only big evil left in the world?
[/quote]
I’m probably not going to get into it too much deeper than this, but, if you understood the mindset of the Japanese military government at that time, you would understand that UNCONDITIONAL surrender is absolutely the ONLY option available to us after getting into the war. There are still hold-offs calling for the reinstatement of the emperor today whose political “rallies” are enough to send chills down your spine. If they ever somehow take power here again, I will head strait back to Texas, never mind I’ve dedicated over 10 years of my life here and thus far I have no plans to return.
[/quote]
Japan was trying to obtain peace terms prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
What do you think are the best terms the U.S.A. could have gotten Japan to agree to: without dropping the atomic bomb and without invading the home islands? (I could be wrong, but I was under the impression the government of Japan was offering to pull out of all or almost all conquered territory.)
[/quote]
I am NOT speaking from a position of historical authority. With that said, it is my understanding that those attempting to procure a peace treaty prior to the bombs were the same ones whom we finally dealt with after the bomb, with the added and final inclusion of the Emperor and Hirohito. Remember that just because some were attempting to arrange a surrender DOES NOT mean that they had the support and agreement of the entirety of the Japanese military command/government. In fact, there was still a vicious struggle against surrendering even AFTER the bombs were dropped and even after both the Emperor and Hirohito had agreed to the surrender. That should give some idea as to what kind of arrangement we might have been able to expect without having dropped the bombs.
This was a people who not too long before this pretty much unanimously believed that a glorious death meant slicing open your own belly, ripping out your entrails and throwing them at your enemy as you made your last stand, rather than be taken by him. They were not screwing around, to say the least, haha.
^^^I believe this, yes. Certainly can’t prove it, but I do think it to be the case.
Wow guys, this has been enlightening. It’s always interesting to see things from the other side so to speak. So I guess the question is, if not the bomb, then what else would have been required to get the Japanese to surrender? Would a D-Day style attack have worked or would that have fought to the last man, woman and child? As far as I know, ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ was the whole of our nuclear arsenal. So technically the Japanese could have continued to fight on if they knew that, perhaps. [/quote]
I dont know man…
If anyone else said to me “things have changed, and not entirely in our favor” I would think that we have a small problem that, with a little luck and work and whatnot…
Apparently, if a Japanese emperor says it, Gozilla is stomping Tokyo.
At the very least. [/quote]
You clearly lack an appreciation for the nuances of Japanese culture.
And, I’m still waiting for you to comment on your claims about my supposed “fake” language proficiency. How do you say, “I’m sorry for being an ass” in German? ;-)[/quote]
I’m going to sound like my mom or my wife for a moment and just say that both of you speak your respective second-languages at an extremely high level of proficiency.
[/quote]
Peacemaker!
FTR, I sometimes find his command of English amazing… Just didn’t appreciate his calling me a liar about my own abilities… But I guess that’s enough walloping of that dead pony…
[/quote]
Oh Lord, if it means that much to you, I am sure that your Japanese is awesome.
I have no way to know, but if Cortez says so I am sure that you could talk the panties of the Japanese beach volley ball team.
Just a quick comment on the Japanese attitude to surrender. My Dad British 14th army 4 years of jungle warfare in Burma only took 6 prisoners the entire time. Hated the smell of roast meat, had to send in the “flame-throwers” as they (Imperial Japanese Army) wouldn’t come out of the bunkers!
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s interesting that even until today, people debate whether the Bomb actually saved lives or not (it’s even been debated on this site).
Major Van Kirk has no doubt that lives were saved by avoiding a direct assault in the Main Islands.
[/quote]
Dropping the bomb or directly assaulting the Main Islands: were those really the only viable alternatives for ending the war in a realistically satisfactory manner? Or were those the only viable alternatives for getting “unconditional surrender”?
Would leaving the Japanese military in power on their home islands, with a peace deal that basically amounted to defeat for them albeit not “unconditional surrender”, have been such a bad thing that several million more human deaths were a sensible price to pay to get a more complete victory? Especially considering that the Japanese military government was not the only big evil left in the world?
[/quote]
I’m probably not going to get into it too much deeper than this, but, if you understood the mindset of the Japanese military government at that time, you would understand that UNCONDITIONAL surrender is absolutely the ONLY option available to us after getting into the war. There are still hold-offs calling for the reinstatement of the emperor today whose political “rallies” are enough to send chills down your spine. If they ever somehow take power here again, I will head strait back to Texas, never mind I’ve dedicated over 10 years of my life here and thus far I have no plans to return.
[/quote]
Japan was trying to obtain peace terms prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
[/quote]
Oh hell no they weren’t unless you mean they were requiring the U.S. to surrender.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s interesting that even until today, people debate whether the Bomb actually saved lives or not (it’s even been debated on this site).
Major Van Kirk has no doubt that lives were saved by avoiding a direct assault in the Main Islands.
[/quote]
Dropping the bomb or directly assaulting the Main Islands: were those really the only viable alternatives for ending the war in a realistically satisfactory manner? Or were those the only viable alternatives for getting “unconditional surrender”?
Would leaving the Japanese military in power on their home islands, with a peace deal that basically amounted to defeat for them albeit not “unconditional surrender”, have been such a bad thing that several million more human deaths were a sensible price to pay to get a more complete victory? Especially considering that the Japanese military government was not the only big evil left in the world?
[/quote]
I’m probably not going to get into it too much deeper than this, but, if you understood the mindset of the Japanese military government at that time, you would understand that UNCONDITIONAL surrender is absolutely the ONLY option available to us after getting into the war. There are still hold-offs calling for the reinstatement of the emperor today whose political “rallies” are enough to send chills down your spine. If they ever somehow take power here again, I will head strait back to Texas, never mind I’ve dedicated over 10 years of my life here and thus far I have no plans to return.
[/quote]
Japan was trying to obtain peace terms prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh hell no they weren’t unless you mean they were requiring the U.S. to surrender.
[/quote]
Yes they were, and Japan’s terms (in 1945 but before the A-bomb was dropped) did not involve the U.S. surrendering. Arguable whether or not the terms were being offered in good faith; or perhaps to gain breathing room to rebuild and go on the offensive again. Arguable whether or not the terms offered were enforceable on the entire Japanese military and government “machinery”/leadership prior to the dropping of the A-bomb. But they most assuredly were being offered, and they most assuredly did not involve the U.S. surrendering.
Yes, everyone below the highest leadership was expected and conditioned to fight to the death. But nonetheless the highest leadership was willing to offer major concessions (whether in good faith, or whether enforceable on all segments of leadership admittedly arguable) to alleviate the extreme situation developing in Japan in 1945, even before the A-bomb was dropped.
Also possible that a pullback peace agreement absent the A-bomb would have resulted in a coup in Japan, followed by an immediate renewal of the war. Any of a number of ways a peace agreement amounting to (substantial but not necessarily officially admitted) defeat for Japan but not unconditional surrender could have gone wrong. But such an agreement was being offered by the Japanese government. The third alternative to invasion of the Home Islands or dropping the A-bomb was not immediate stationing of Japanese garrisons in Kansas City.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
There are still hold-offs calling for the reinstatement of the emperor today whose political “rallies” are enough to send chills down your spine. If they ever somehow take power here again, I will head strait back to Texas, never mind I’ve dedicated over 10 years of my life here and thus far I have no plans to return.
[/quote]
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Yes, everyone below the highest leadership was expected and conditioned to fight to the death.
[/quote]
An unrealistic thought, perhaps: but sometimes I think that if we could have made peace with that (unfortunately brutal) militaristic culture and left it in place, it would be convenient to have them as a buffer in between us and Communist China, and not even have to pay for their defense. Some of us might wonder about this again, should we someday experience economic collapse followed by invasion followed by internment in Communist-run re-education camps.
Dropping the bomb or directly assaulting the Main Islands: were those really the only viable alternatives for ending the war in a realistically satisfactory manner?
[/quote]
Yes. See what Cortes and Chushin have said.
In the U.S., the Manhattan Project proceeded side by side with a plan to seize the most westerly island of Kyushu and use it as a springboard for an invasion of the main island of Honshu. As Churchill relates;
‘The homeland was in chaos and on the verge of collapse. The professional diplomats were convinced that only immediate surrender under the authority of the Emperor could save Japan from complete disintegration, but power still lay almost enitrely in the hands of a military clique determined to commit the nation to mass suicide rather than accept defeat.’
They were the only viable alternatives for ending the war quickly with the least loss of life. The Manhattan Project overtook the plan for a mainland invasion and based on calculations of the likely loss of life the nuclear alternative was taken as the best option.
No it wouldn’t. But if you knew anything about Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese military regime then you’d know that it wouldn’t have been possible.
I’m going to sound like my mom or my wife for a moment and just say that both of you speak your respective second-languages at an extremely high level of proficiency.
[/quote]
Peacemaker!
FTR, I sometimes find his command of English amazing… Just didn’t appreciate his calling me a liar about my own abilities… But I guess that’s enough walloping of that dead pony…
[/quote]
Oh Lord, if it means that much to you, I am sure that your Japanese is awesome.
I have no way to know, but if Cortez says so I am sure that you could talk the panties of the Japanese beach volley ball team.
There, all better?
[/quote]
Says the guy who threw a tantrum when Pat said he was a Holocaust denier.
No, not the same level, but then again Pat didn’t need to be goaded into retracting what he mistakenly said.
And I was half joking while trying to get you to retract.
I didnt expect that to be so hard for you to do.[/quote]
Oh Lord, one remark I cannot even remember, I am having a hard time to muster the drive to…
Oh well…
Dear Chushin,
I am very, very sorry that I insinuated, speculated or outright claimed that your Japanese was anything but of the highest quality.
Your Japanese skills seem to be more important to you than I had realized and had I known that, I would have stuck with something safer, like speculating about your penis size.
