0th anniversary of VJ Day: Thank the atomic bomb for saving millions of lives

[Jarlaxle]

The Ethics of Bombing Civilians After World War II: The Persistence of Norms Against Targeting Civilians in the Korean War | Sciences Po Mass Violence and Resistance - Research Network

This article was adapted for The Asia-Pacific Journal (http://www.japanfocus.org) from a chapter in Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue (eds.), The American Way of Bombing: How Ethical and Legal Norms Change, from Flying Fortresses to Drones (Cornell University Press, 2014) .

www.sciencespo.fr

"On the eve of World War II, American leaders strongly condemned the bombing of civilians. "

"...the U.S. Senate issued its own “unqualified condemnation of the inhuman bombing of civilian populations” in 1938."

Politicians grandstand and make stupid statements. Your point?

"...in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt urgently appealed to all sides in the hostilities to affirm publicly that their armed forces “shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations..."

That statement should have gotten him impeached and removed from office.

"...Roosevelt feared that hundreds of thousands of “innocent human beings” would be harmed if the belligerent nations sunk to “this form of inhuman barbarism ..."

I will note he said this two years AFTER the Japanese killed a quarter million civilians in Nanjing.

"... judged from the perspective of what American leaders said about the bombing of civilians, little changed during World War II, even at the height of the air campaigns against Germany and Japan. They continued to talk as if they were trying to uphold the prohibition against targeting civilians..."

The "leaders" are politicians, their words mean little.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This American militarist propaganda is just about as bad as the propaganda that the Japanese militarists put out during the war.

I have personally documented for you that we now know from Japanese archival materials and other primary sources that, weeks before Hiroshima, most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed. Hiroshima was unnecessary, and many senior figures in our government knew it. All we had to do was give Japan private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman refused to do this, and his refusal enabled the militarists to prevent an earlier surrender.

There is nothing patriotic about lying about the unnecessary slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and children. I notice you guys never mention that General Eisenhower and General MacArthur both said that we did *not* need to nuke Japan to end the war.

Eisenhower had no idea what he was talking about. MacArthur was engaged in wishful thinking. Surrendering nearly got Hirohito assassinated after two atomic bombs.

So, you think it should be US policy to target and kill civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?

US policy should be fighting to win. Whatever it takes.

I think Poophead has just given up. Hell, he can not even provide references to where he is quoting from.

That is from a 2016 paper called "Moral Character or Character of War? American Public Opinion on the Targeting of Civilians in Times of War", by Benjamin Valentino and published in Daedalus.

Moral Character or Character of War? American Public Opinion on the Targeting of Civilians in Times of War

Abstract. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the United States has refrained from the widespread, intentional targeting of civilian populations in times of war. Public opinion polls seem to reflect a marked decline in American support for targeting foreign civilians since that time. Drawing on...

direct.mit.edu

He is not even trying to stick to the very topic anymore. And is just randomly posting quotations and can't even cite them. Maybe I should do the same thing.

He's essentially a spambot.

The Japanese military junta running the country disagreed with you,

And damn near killed Hirohito for surrendering.

 

[Mushroom]

And damn near killed Hirohito for surrendering.

And others were killed.

General Takeshi Mori was the commander of the Imperial Guard at the palace. And he was executed by Major Kenji Hatanaka when he refused to surrender and follow along with the coup. And at the time he was meeting with his brother-in-law, Colonel Michinori Shiraishi. When Major Hatanaka tried to use his sword to kill General Mori, Colonel Shiraishi jumped in front of him and took the sword blow himself. But that was of no use, because the Major still killed him.

Prime Minister Suzuki was warned of the approaching soldiers moments before they arrived to kill him. And angered he was not there the coup members machine gunned his office and burned the building down.

Although to be honest, I doubt they would have killed Emperor Showa. Japan had a long tradition of puppet emperors, they likely would have just locked him away in the palace and continued to conduct the war as it had been before.

 

[Mac-7]

The mass suicides of civilians at Saipan who thought throwing their entire families off of cliffs then themselves rather than surrender.

Did that never happen?

Save your energy

Unkotare is a lost cause

He should not be allowed within a city block of students under 18 with his revisionist history bs

 

[Mushroom]

Save your energy

@Unkotare is a lost cause

You have to realize, of this I am all to well aware.

Who I am actually responding to is those that might read his coprolite, and start to believe it. I hope that they also read my responses, and hopefully even take the time to look up the things I write about. Actually learn some real history, and use their critical thinking to analyze the facts and realize that he is full of crap.

I think that is the largest difference. I actively encourage people to look up the facts, and to challenge me if my facts are wrong. He just wants blind obedience, simply because he should be believed and obeyed without question.

 

[Mushroom]

And to give an idea how far away Japan was from surrender, I present the cables from Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador to the Soviet Union Naotake Sato.

Dated 17 July 1945, from Togo to Sato:

In such times, we continue to maintain our war strength; if only the United States and Great Britain would recognize Japan's honor and existence we would terminate the war and would like to save mankind from the ravages of war, but if the enemy insists on unconditional surrender to the very end, then our country and His Majesty would unanimously resolve to fight a war of resistance to the bitter end. Therefore, inviting the Soviet Union to mediate fairly does not include unconditional surrender; please understand this point in particular.

Dated 21 July 1945, from Togo to Sato:

Although it is apparent that there will be more casualties on both sides in case the war is prolonged, we will stand united as one nation against the enemy if the enemy forcibly demands our unconditional surrender. It is, however, our intention to achieve, with Soviet assistance, a peace which is not of unconditional nature, in order to avoid such a situation as mentioned above in accordance with His Majesty's desire.

Note: the "peace" that Japan was trying to negotiate was an armistice and a "pro quo ante bellum". In other words, all nations return to their December 1941 positions.

Dated 25 July 1945, Togo to Sato:

As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender. Should the United States and Great Britain remain insistent on formality, there is no solution to this situation other than for us to hold out until complete collapse because of this one point alone.

And once again, the use of "peace". Which to Japan meant regaining all lost territory, and continuing to hold what they then occupied (China, Manchukuo, Chosin, etc).

Dated 28 July 1945, Sato to Togo:

According to item No. 3 of your telegram a United States spokesman has hinted that unconditional surrender still stands; however, should Japan accept surrender immediately, in reality the terms may be mollified.

This was about the fifth time Sato told Togo that the follow-up left room for a possible negotiation, and that the Government or himself should reach out and find if suitable terms could be reached regarding the Emperor. Ambassador Sato was constantly begging Togo to communicate with the Allied Powers, and see if they could reach a settlement.

The telegrams between the two are quite fascinating to read. And it must be realized that the US was reading them, as they had already broken the Japanese diplomatic codes. They knew exactly what the Foreign Minister and Ambassador were saying, and exactly how intransigent the Government was. That they would not even consider any end to the war short of at their terms. I encourage anybody to read them, I find them fascinating to be honest.

Nuclear Files: Library: Correspondence: Telegrams: Togo-Sato

Japanese Peace feelers in the Soviet Union

www.nuclearfiles.org

 

[Unkotare]

....



I will note he said this two years AFTER the Japanese killed a quarter million civilians in Nanjing.



....

What US state is that city located in?

 

[there4eyeM]

Save your energy

Unkotare is a lost cause

He should not be allowed within a city block of students under 18 with his revisionist history bs

He may be wrong about a lot of things and is certainly wrong on some, but as regards the atrocities of the atomic bombing, he is correct. Japan was prostrate and there were other options than incinerating non-combatant populations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He may be wrong about a lot of things and is certainly wrong on some, but as regards the atrocities of the atomic bombing, he is correct. Japan was prostrate and there were other options than incinerating non-combatant populations.

an invasion would have been a blood bath with millions of civilians dying. those bombs saved lives.

 

[Mac-7]

He may be wrong about a lot of things and is certainly wrong on some, but as regards the atrocities of the atomic bombing, he is correct. Japan was prostrate and there were other options than incinerating non-combatant populations.

The other option was allowing the Soviet Union to occupy half of Japan, ala post-war Germany and Korea

 

[there4eyeM]

The other option was allowing the Soviet Union to occupy half of Japan, ala post-war Germany and Korea

The bomb Moscow, not Hiroshima.

 

[there4eyeM]

an invasion would have been a blood bath with millions of civilians dying. those bombs saved lives.

An invasion was not necessary.

 

[Mac-7]

The bomb Moscow, not Hiroshima.

Nonsense

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An invasion was not necessary.

LOL it was either that or Japan surrenders since Japan had no intention to surrender and the Allies had no intention of allowing the war to continue it was going to happen all your claims are foolish and ignore reality.

 

[there4eyeM]

LOL it was either that or Japan surrenders since Japan had no intention to surrender and the Allies had no intention of allowing the war to continue it was going to happen all your claims are foolish and ignore reality.

Old way thinking is not reality, just a narrative.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Old way thinking is not reality, just a narrative.

LOL you dont get to use current thinking to second guess historical facts and historical realities.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What US state is that city located in?

Are you on some sort of mind-altering chemicals?

 

[AZrailwhale]

an invasion would have been a blood bath with millions of civilians dying. those bombs saved lives.

And a blockade would have doomed millions of Japanese civilians to slow starvation as the junta would have allocated whatever food supplies were available to the military.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And a blockade would have doomed millions of Japanese civilians to slow starvation as the junta would have allocated whatever food supplies were available to the military.

the reality ignored by these revisionists is that the invasion was set for November and no surrender before that date would have seen us invade.

 

[Unkotare]

Are you on some sort of mind-altering chemicals?

That’s not an answer.