CDZ Hiroshima Debate: The End of the Age of Reason?

[RetiredGySgt]

All the Japanese offered even after the first atomic bomb was a ceasefire. No troops allowed in Japan a return to the 41 start lines and no adverse policy or actions against Japan or its possessions in China and Korea. Ohh did I mention they also wanted the return of all their lost territory? That is not an offer to surrender.

Difficulty reading?

Yes you seem to have a problem reading. What the Japanese offered was NOT a surrender.

 

[Unkotare]

Surrender: to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The Terms Of Surrender are decided by the victor not the loser.

*****SMILE*****

 

[2aguy]

Japan NEVER offered to surrender XXXX -- Mod Edit. ALL they offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. No occupation, no apology no disbandment of military no consequence for murdering MILLIONS of people.

Go ahead be specific post for us these supposed offers of peace, with date time and who offered it. There was no peace Government in Japan. The Army controlled the Government completely. Even after 2 atomic bombs they REFUSED to surrender and when the Emperor over ruled them they attempted a COUP to stop him.

Japan tried multiple times to surrender.

Dishonest...they wanted to keep what they had taken.....non starter...just ask the Chinese, Fillipinos, and all the rest who suffered under Japanese occupation...

So, the atomic bombs were about revenge then?

No. Had the Japanese surrendered they would not have dropped the bombs. If Japan had surrendered and they still dropped the bombs..that would have been about revenge.

What if their ability to wage war had already been stripped? What if there were indications of an attempt to negotiate peace?

Funny....you guys say that they were making these attempts....yet they never actually surrendered, did they? They did surrender after the bombs were dropped...right?

 

[there4eyeM]

...and the ends (however ill-defined) justify the means...

 

[2aguy]

...and the ends (however ill-defined) justify the means...

Sometimes........

 

[midcan5]

From everything I have ever read dropping the bomb saved lives on both sides. It changed war and it may have even stopped further advancement by Russia and even China. Revising history is too easy for some.

"How could a president... answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?" David McCullough; Truman biographer

I have more data but here's something to chew on.

Plunge Pontificates Atomic Bomb Section 4 Why did this have to happen wasn t Japan Trying to Surrender

"I will state here, asking for an unconditional surrender was an absolute necessity. The people of the United States would accept nothing less. But what is an unconditional surrender? It means that the side surrendering can not set any conditions for their surrender. This is basically what the US got from Japan. Yes, the emperor was allowed to remain. Allowing him to remain made for a far smoother transfer of power and allowed for a far easier disarming of the massive Japanese military. He remained as a figurehead only, completely and totally under the direction of the UN Supreme Commander. Yet, his being there was a comfort to the people of Japan during a time of complete turmoil and change."

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.

What terms did we grant to Nazi Germany, rather than their unconditional surrender?

Initially it was simply military unconditional surrender. Not civilian government. That got tricky. That said we were still in an official state of war for legal reasons.

Still waiting for your citation to this effect.
What terms did we give Germany?
Be specific, and cite your claim.

What's this?
Avalon Project - German Surrender Documents

Thank you for providing the information necessary to prove you wrong.

1. The German Commander-in-Chief Southwest hereby surrenders unconditionally all the forces under his command or control on land, at sea and in the air and places himself and these forces unconditionally at the disposal of the Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations....
-
We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea and in the air who are at this date under German control.
-
1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.
-
The Allied armies, through sacrifice and devotion and with God's help, have wrung from Germany a final and unconditional surrender.
-

So....what terms did we give Germany?
Be specific, and cite your claim.

 

[Dante]

5 of every 6 deaths from the bombings was civilian, not military.

http://www.domlife.org/justice/Disarmament/bombfactsheet.pdf

so what? It was war. It was morally wrong on one level, but it was war.War against a brutal and savage enemy

 

[Disir]

No. It's not even debatable. There has never been nor will there ever be an unconditional surrender.

What terms did we grant to Nazi Germany, rather than their unconditional surrender?

Initially it was simply military unconditional surrender. Not civilian government. That got tricky. That said we were still in an official state of war for legal reasons.

Still waiting for your citation to this effect.
What terms did we give Germany?
Be specific, and cite your claim.

What's this?
Avalon Project - German Surrender Documents

Thank you for providing the information necessary to prove you wrong.

1. The German Commander-in-Chief Southwest hereby surrenders unconditionally all the forces under his command or control on land, at sea and in the air and places himself and these forces unconditionally at the disposal of the Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations....
-
We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea and in the air who are at this date under German control.
-
1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.
-
The Allied armies, through sacrifice and devotion and with God's help, have wrung from Germany a final and unconditional surrender.
-

So....what terms did we give Germany?
Be specific, and cite your claim.

It was military. Not civilian. This isn't that difficult. Big difference. Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What terms did we grant to Nazi Germany, rather than their unconditional surrender?

Initially it was simply military unconditional surrender. Not civilian government. That got tricky. That said we were still in an official state of war for legal reasons.

Still waiting for your citation to this effect.
What terms did we give Germany?
Be specific, and cite your claim.

What's this?
Avalon Project - German Surrender Documents

Thank you for providing the information necessary to prove you wrong.

1. The German Commander-in-Chief Southwest hereby surrenders unconditionally all the forces under his command or control on land, at sea and in the air and places himself and these forces unconditionally at the disposal of the Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations....
-
We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea and in the air who are at this date under German control.
-
1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.
-
The Allied armies, through sacrifice and devotion and with God's help, have wrung from Germany a final and unconditional surrender.
-

So....what terms did we give Germany?
Be specific, and cite your claim.

It was military. Not civilian. This isn't that difficult. Big difference. Try again.

i accept your concession of the point; good to see you can admit it when someone demonstrates you are wrong..
Thank you.

 

[there4eyeM]

Japan may have had a brutal and savage enemy military and government, but it definitely had a vulnerable and defenseless population. Why wasn't a bomb dropped on a Japanese Army concentration in occupied Manchuria? Instead, what was demonstrated was a new level of brutal and savage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why wasn't a bomb dropped on a Japanese Army concentration in occupied Manchuria?

Distance form Tinian to Manchuria?
Operational radius of a Silverplate B29?
There you go.

 

[there4eyeM]

Hardly a refutation, as the distance problem could easily have been overcome with various planning, but it is the idea in general more than the specific one offered that is important. Incinerating innocent civilians was unnecessary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hardly a refutation, as the distance problem could easily have been overcome with various planning,

Aircraft only go so far. No planning gets past that.
And thus, you have your answer as to why they did not - could not - do as you suggest.

 

[2aguy]

Japan may have had a brutal and savage enemy military and government, but it definitely had a vulnerable and defenseless population. Why wasn't a bomb dropped on a Japanese Army concentration in occupied Manchuria? Instead, what was demonstrated was a new level of brutal and savage.

Because we could bomb the place that could end the war...it would have taken weeks to find out about the bombing in Mancchuria and the military would have denied it happened....do you guys think before you post...we dropped the bombs and in a matter of days the war was over. both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, with industrial and military importance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Proposed demonstration
In early May 1945, the Interim Committee was created by Stimson at the urging of leaders of the Manhattan Project and with the approval of Truman to advise on matters pertaining to nuclear energy.[79] During the meetings on May 31 and June 1, scientist Ernest Lawrence had suggested giving the Japanese a non-combat demonstration.[80] Arthur Compton later recalled that:

It was evident that everyone would suspect trickery. If a bomb were exploded in Japan with previous notice, the Japanese air power was still adequate to give serious interference. An atomic bomb was an intricate device, still in the developmental stage. Its operation would be far from routine. If during the final adjustments of the bomb the Japanese defenders should attack, a faulty move might easily result in some kind of failure. Such an end to an advertised demonstration of power would be much worse than if the attempt had not been made. It was now evident that when the time came for the bombs to be used we should have only one of them available, followed afterwards by others at all-too-long intervals. We could not afford the chance that one of them might be a dud. If the test were made on some neutral territory, it was hard to believe that Japan's determined and fanatical military men would be impressed. If such an open test were made first and failed to bring surrender, the chance would be gone to give the shock of surprise that proved so effective. On the contrary, it would make the Japanese ready to interfere with an atomic attack if they could. Though the possibility of a demonstration that would not destroy human lives was attractive, no one could suggest a way in which it could be made so convincing that it would be likely to stop the war.[81]

The possibility of a demonstration was raised again in the Franck Report issued by physicist James Franck on June 11 and the Scientific Advisory Panel rejected his report on June 16, saying that "we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use." Franck then took the report to Washington, D.C., where the Interim Committee met on June 21 to re-examine its earlier conclusions; but it reaffirmed that there was no alternative to the use of the bomb on a military target.[82]

Like Compton, many U.S. officials and scientists argued that a demonstration would sacrifice the shock value of the atomic attack, and the Japanese could deny the atomic bomb was lethal, making the mission less likely to produce surrender. Allied prisoners of war might be moved to the demonstration site and be killed by the bomb. They also worried that the bomb might be a dud since the Trinity test was of a stationary device, not an air-dropped bomb. In addition, only two bombs would be available at the start of August, although more were in production, and they cost billions of dollars, so using one for a demonstration would be expensive.[83][84]

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[2aguy]

Proposed demonstration
In early May 1945, the Interim Committee was created by Stimson at the urging of leaders of the Manhattan Project and with the approval of Truman to advise on matters pertaining to nuclear energy.[79] During the meetings on May 31 and June 1, scientist Ernest Lawrence had suggested giving the Japanese a non-combat demonstration.[80] Arthur Compton later recalled that:

It was evident that everyone would suspect trickery. If a bomb were exploded in Japan with previous notice, the Japanese air power was still adequate to give serious interference. An atomic bomb was an intricate device, still in the developmental stage. Its operation would be far from routine. If during the final adjustments of the bomb the Japanese defenders should attack, a faulty move might easily result in some kind of failure. Such an end to an advertised demonstration of power would be much worse than if the attempt had not been made. It was now evident that when the time came for the bombs to be used we should have only one of them available, followed afterwards by others at all-too-long intervals. We could not afford the chance that one of them might be a dud. If the test were made on some neutral territory, it was hard to believe that Japan's determined and fanatical military men would be impressed. If such an open test were made first and failed to bring surrender, the chance would be gone to give the shock of surprise that proved so effective. On the contrary, it would make the Japanese ready to interfere with an atomic attack if they could. Though the possibility of a demonstration that would not destroy human lives was attractive, no one could suggest a way in which it could be made so convincing that it would be likely to stop the war.[81]

The possibility of a demonstration was raised again in the Franck Report issued by physicist James Franck on June 11 and the Scientific Advisory Panel rejected his report on June 16, saying that "we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use." Franck then took the report to Washington, D.C., where the Interim Committee met on June 21 to re-examine its earlier conclusions; but it reaffirmed that there was no alternative to the use of the bomb on a military target.[82]

Like Compton, many U.S. officials and scientists argued that a demonstration would sacrifice the shock value of the atomic attack, and the Japanese could deny the atomic bomb was lethal, making the mission less likely to produce surrender. Allied prisoners of war might be moved to the demonstration site and be killed by the bomb. They also worried that the bomb might be a dud since the Trinity test was of a stationary device, not an air-dropped bomb. In addition, only two bombs would be available at the start of August, although more were in production, and they cost billions of dollars, so using one for a demonstration would be expensive.[83][84]

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

thanks...this is a great point....those who oppose the dropping of the bombs are not concerned with the actual situation at the time of the war...they will pontificate from 2015, and dismiss any points that show the reality faced by the decision makers back then.

 

[there4eyeM]

An army concentration is a military target.

 

[2aguy]

An army concentration is a military target.

which is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid targets.