Paul Fussell — “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”

[Flash]

anger had nothing to do with it, no more than using bullets, bombs, torpedoes, and any other weapon in our arsenal

What is a interesting fact, is no other country in the world has advanced from the medieval world to the modern world in less time.

And I dont think any other country has embraced the USA and our culture as much as the USA.

War is hell, for losers and winners, for those who fought with a medieval mentality, for those who followed the Geneva convention.

The best thing that ever happen to the Japs was losing WWII.

 

[Mushroom]

The USA forced Japan in 185x with canon boats to open their markets for business.

That is nonsense, obviously you know nothing of Edo era Japan. The nation was an isolationist nation on drugs, to put it mildly.

Literally it was a law because of Sakoku ("locked country") that any foreigners landing on the shores were put to death. It was a capital offense to either land on Japan, or to leave it. And among the proclamations was the Ninen Nashi Law ("No second thought"), which authorized their navy and shore forces to attack any ships that sailed into their waters and kill any foreigners found on land. Over 100 shipwrecked sailors were executed by the Japanese in the 50 years prior to the fleet arriving.

The main goal of the fleet was to stop the Japanese from attacking any ships near their islands, and from executing sailors that were shipwrecked on their shores. That they open their markets for business was largely their own desire, once the Tokugawa Shogunate started to lose its power over the country, and Emperor Meiji started his restoration. But do not be fooled, Tokugawa Iesada wanted the foreign trade. The country had been ravaged by a series of earthquakes, and the economy was in shambles. Plus he wanted to acquire things that the Americans could and would sell him, that the Dutch had so far refused to sell (like more advanced weapons and ship designs).

 

[Mushroom]

Three, as for your pathetic exaggerations about Japan's military capability to repel an invasion, they are just laughable. On what planet did Japan have "thousands of suicide boats" and "tens of thousands of kamikaze aircraft" ready to repel an invasion?

Wow, really?

Well, by August 1945 Japan had already built over 6,000 of a planned 11,000 boat fleet of Shin'yō suicide boats. Rather simple, they were to fire their 2 rockets during the approach, then ram into ships and detonate their 600 pound warhead.



Then the over 800 MXY-7 Ohka jet powered suicide aircraft, commonly called "Bakka Bombs".

And there were other aircraft being built for suicide missions, including the wood bodied Nakajima Ki-115 which did not even have landing gear. They had only started the production of them in August when the war ended, but it was expected that from 4,000-6,000 a month would have been built quickly, as they were a simple craft to build, and had been designed to accept engines from almost any fighter or light bomber in the Japanese inventory. All spare motors in Army and Navy inventories were already being shipped to the factories for this when the war ended.

But yes, Japan did indeed have thousands of suicide boats. And was quickly ramping up production of Koryu class submarines. Only around 100 were completed at the time of the surrender, but over 200 partially completed hulls were found in shipyards around the country.

This was a drydock near Hiroshima, filled with I-16 class Koryu suicide submarines being inspected after the surrender.

 

[elektra]

The best thing that ever happen to the Japs was losing WWII.

yep, they became a changed people

 

[elektra]

Three, as for your pathetic exaggerations about Japan's military capability to repel an invasion, they are just laughable. On what planet did Japan have "thousands of suicide boats" and "tens of thousands of kamikaze aircraft" ready to repel an invasion?

"pathetic"? "laughable"

mikegrifter, what is pathetic is your continued whining that the USA did not win. What is pathetic is your crying that it was the Russians that won the war. What is pathetic is you claiming Japan was beat. What is pathetic is every comment you have made on the subject.

Japan fought the Russian invasion of the Japanese territories until sept. 2nd of 1945, but we are to believe that If we did not drop atomic bombs and Russia did not enter the war Japan would not of been able to fight the USA if we invaded, because they were already beat?

mikegrifter makes another, contradictory revisionist statement.

mikegrifter, you know why your attempts at being a revisionist are so pathetic, it is because despite all the books you have recommended as a source, you have not read any of them. You are a lazy, ignorant, pompous, ass who thinks a google search wins an argument.

 

[elektra]

This argument shows supreme ignorance. The Japanese fought the Soviets after August 15 because the Soviets did not stop attacking after the Japanese surrendered!

It’s clear the US should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

qz.com

And in response to my comment that the Japanese fought the USSR until sept 2nd, hence they did not surrender to the Soviets, mikegrifter gave the above link. I shall quote from that link.

And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

Unnecessary? Yet before we dropped the atomic bombs Japan did not surrender.

Repugnant? The use of the word is not used to make clear the history and facts. The use of repugnant is dictating how we should think of the dropping of the atomic bombs. The author attaches emotion to his argument because he does not have facts to make his revisionist argument.

Very likely? Obviously not a war crime, otherwise it would be stated, but again the author needs us to believe. Not to rely on the facts of history, that it was not a war crime.

Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage.

Destruction of life also stirs me to sorrow and outrage, like the torture of American Prisoners of War that the Japanese were actively killing every day. Such, selective "sorrow and outrage", rings hollow. It is only the Japanese deaths of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that, "stirs" the author. Not the deaths of the Americans. The author attaches emotion to his argument because he does not have facts to make his revisionist argument.

there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay

Yep, a giant splash in the water would of scared the hell out of those Japanese soldiers that just cut the heads off 1000's of Chinese.

Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000

We feared? No sir! We knew, we suffered more casualties attacking Okinawa. The author attaches emotions to his argument because he does not have facts to make his revisionist argument.

Properly used as threats to ensure quick surrender, the A-bombs could have prevented virtually all further deaths in Japan

????? We did threaten, "prompt and utter destruction". The author said we should bombed Tokyo bay? And if that did not work, bomb it again? The first atomic bomb on Hiroshima did not force the Japanese to surrender? How could the first or the second or even a third bomb dropped on Tokyo bay force the surrender? It could not, it was suggested, and men much more educated on the subject than anyone here decided it was a very bad idea.

Each sentence this author writes is easily seen to be without any fact, it is all emotion meant to influence without having facts.

I can go through the whole article and address each point attempted to be made. And I will show the author to be wrong, for I only use facts.

It should be noted, that in responding to my comment about the USSR and Japan fighting long after Japan surrendered to the USA, mikegrifter offers an article that does not mention the USSR and Japanese fighting.

 

[Mushroom]

We feared? No sir! We knew, we suffered more casualties attacking Okinawa. The author attaches emotions to his argument because he does not have facts to make his revisionist argument.

It must be noted that most of the low estimates of casualties were made by Generals that wanted to punish the country more. And seriously underestimated losses due to the fighting in Europe.

By late 1944, the President and others in the government were seriously questioning the estimates of casualties they were being told. So in July (after the Battle of Okinawa) as part of the final decision they finally handed off the question to William Shockley. A civilian that worked at Bell Labs, he would later win the Nobel Prize for developing the transistor. But he looked for the first time at actual battlefield casualty results in the Pacific, specifically Saipan and Okinawa. And the report he turned over in late July shocked even the military.

Between 5-10 million Japanese dead, 1.7-4 million Allied casualties, with 400-800k fatalities. And that was only in the first 3-6 months.

This report was ordered because as you said, by that time the top leadership knew they could no longer trust the "estimates" of their commanders in the field. Okinawa itself indeed had over 50,000 US wounded, and over 20,000 dead. With over 150k civilians and 110k Japanese military dead (approximately 95% of Japanese forces on the island). But the pre-battle estimates were only in the range of 5-8k killed and wounded on the US side.

Secretary Stimson realized that the estimates coming from the military and DoD could not be right, so ordered Shockley to conduct his own prediction based on actual battle casualties in the theater.

 

[zaangalewa]

That is nonsense,

No. Short form from US Opens Japan (1853-1854) Storyboard by 429e5e37 :

Perry and his fleet arrive in Tokyo harbor, 1853, along with his two steam boats and two sail boats. He brings new technology and gives it to Japan as a gift. How ever Perry also says that if Japan won't sign a treaty with the US and open the ports for trade, he will attack.

obviously you know nothing of Edo era Japan.

Exactly.

The nation was an isolationist nation on drugs, to put it mildly.

"nation on drugs" - also a good name for the USA. And isolationists are "since ever" a problem of the USA, or "no problem" becausde you never really had been an isolated country

Literally it was a law because of Sakoku ("locked country") that any foreigners landing on the shores were put to death.

So they saw in foreigners automatically enemies. Remembers me also to the USA.

It was a capital offense to either land on Japan, or to leave it.

?

And among the proclamations was the Ninen Nashi Law ("No second thought"), which authorized their navy and shore forces to attack any ships that sailed into their waters and kill any foreigners found on land. Over 100 shipwrecked sailors were executed by the Japanese in the 50 years prior to the fleet arriving.

Bad luck for them. And a behavior from the Japanese which is not Buddhistic explainable.

The main goal of the fleet was to stop the Japanese from attacking any ships near their islands, and from executing sailors that were shipwrecked on their shores.

But it had been the right of the Japanese to do so.

That they open their markets for business was largely their own desire, once the Tokugawa Shogunate started to lose its power over the country, and Emperor Meiji started his restoration. But do not be fooled, Tokugawa Iesada wanted the foreign trade.

They made the experience that the world outside of Japan had invincible ships made of steel which drove with steam and had canons for very long distances.

The country had been ravaged by a series of earthquakes, and the economy was in shambles. Plus he wanted to acquire things that the Americans could and would sell him, that the Dutch had so far refused to sell (like more advanced weapons and ship designs).

Hmm ... strange ... the contact between Japan and [the Netherlands of] "Germany" seems to be older and more mysterious than I thought first.

 

[zaangalewa]

(1) The best thing that ever happen to the Japs was losing WWII.

(2) The best thing that ever had happened to the Yankees had been 9/11.

Which of this two sentences is more stupid?

 

[Mushroom]

But it had been the right of the Japanese to do so.

It is their right to summarily execute any shipwrecked sailors?

Sorry, just the fact that you seem to honestly believe that makes anything else you said irrelevant.

Oh, and the Portugese were their only trading partner for over a century, until they were supplanted by the Dutch. And both of them stoked the paranoia of the Tokagawa Shoguns for their own advantage.

 

[zaangalewa]

Wow, really?

Well, by August 1945 Japan had already built over 6,000 of a planned 11,000 boat fleet of Shin'yō suicide boats. Rather simple, they were to fire their 2 rockets during the approach, then ram into ships and detonate their 600 pound warhead.



Then the over 800 MXY-7 Ohka jet powered suicide aircraft, commonly called "Bakka Bombs".

And there were other aircraft being built for suicide missions, including the wood bodied Nakajima Ki-115 which did not even have landing gear. They had only started the production of them in August when the war ended, but it was expected that from 4,000-6,000 a month would have been built quickly, as they were a simple craft to build, and had been designed to accept engines from almost any fighter or light bomber in the Japanese inventory. All spare motors in Army and Navy inventories were already being shipped to the factories for this when the war ended.

But yes, Japan did indeed have thousands of suicide boats. And was quickly ramping up production of Koryu class submarines. Only around 100 were completed at the time of the surrender, but over 200 partially completed hulls were found in shipyards around the country.

This was a drydock near Hiroshima, filled with I-16 class Koryu suicide submarines being inspected after the surrender.

What shows only that the Japanese had been extremely desperated and had not been able to win this war. Under such conditions a peace agreement should not had been a big problem for everyone who did not suffer an "everything or nothing" mentality.

 

[zaangalewa]

It is their right to summarily execute any shipwrecked sailors?

Yes.

Sorry, just the fact that you seem to honestly believe that makes anything else you said irrelevant.

You speak about the year 1853. In general had no one any right to sail in the sovereign territory of Japan. Japan made clear that this means the death of everyone who is doing so. Which law broke Japan in 1853?

Oh, and the Portugese were their only trading partner for over a century, until they were supplanted by the Dutch. And both of them stoked the paranoia of the Tokagawa Shoguns for their own advantage.

And so the USA fought against Portugal and the Netherlands for the very best of all mankind (=their own money purses) by threatening Japan with canon boats, so Japan changed the own politics and became the very first nation of the so called 3rd world who started to enter the 1st world, what had been the world of the colonial powers in this time of history. But what had been really better for Japan, the USA and the rest of the world?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here are the two basic problems when talking about Imperial Japan and World War II:

One, many conservatives and liberals alike lump all Japanese into a single entity. They make no distinction between the Japanese officers and soldiers who were vicious and barbaric and those who were not. They make no distinction between Japan's civilian leaders who opposed war with the U.S. and wanted to surrender months before Hiroshima and the Japanese militarists, who were bloodthirsty warmongers and wanted to continue the war, such as General Umezu and Admiral Toyoda. They also make no distinction between the senior Japanese military officers who opposed the militarists and wanted to end the war and the militarists.

Two, the Japanese military committed such horrible war crimes and on such a large scale that, understandably, few people are inclined to feel any sympathy toward the Japanese as a whole, even though the vast majority of Japanese civilians knew nothing about the war crimes until after the war, and even though the military often acted without the government's knowledge and/or approval.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Here are the two basic problems when talking about Imperial Japan and World War II:

One, many conservatives and liberals alike lump all Japanese into a single entity. They make no distinction between the Japanese officers and soldiers who were vicious and barbaric and those who were not. They make no distinction between Japan's civilian leaders who opposed war with the U.S. and wanted to surrender months before Hiroshima and the Japanese militarists, who were bloodthirsty warmongers and wanted to continue the war, such as General Umezu and Admiral Toyoda. They also make no distinction between the senior Japanese military officers who opposed the militarists and wanted to end the war and the militarists.

Two, the Japanese military committed such horrible war crimes and on such a large scale that, understandably, few people are inclined to feel any sympathy toward the Japanese as a whole, even though the vast majority of Japanese civilians knew nothing about the war crimes until after the war, and even though the military often acted without the government's knowledge and/or approval.

So, there were 3 Japanese hardliners who wanted to fight to the bitter end and 3 moderates who were considering surrender. The emperor had the deciding vote.

Potsdam decree was a decree signed by Russia, America and Britain that called for Japan's immediate surrender or Japan would face utter annihilation, a hint that America had the bomb.

Japan didn't respond.

The first draft of the Potsdam decree said the emperor could keep his job. This was removed from the decree in later drafts.

Hiroshima was nuked. Over a hundred thousand Japanese died. Then Nagasaki.

Japan didn't respond.

A week went by.

Our Secretary of State sent a note to the Japanese via the Swiss embassy. There was no communication between America and Japan at that time.

The note strongly hinted that the emperor could keep his job, if it was okay with the Japanese people.

The emperor decided that was good enough, so he voted with the moderates and Japan surrendered.

So why did America remove the bit about how the emperor could keep his job from the Potsdam decree?

85% of Americans in a Gallop poll wanted the emperor executed. Truman wasn't going to throw the election to the Republicans, so he had the text removed.

But you couldn't execute the emperor. Some Japanese saw the emperor in the same light that we see Jesus.

 

[elektra]

Here are the two basic problems when talking about Imperial Japan and World War II:

One, many conservatives and liberals alike lump all Japanese into a single entity. They make no distinction between the Japanese officers and soldiers who were vicious and barbaric and those who were not. They make no distinction between Japan's civilian leaders who opposed war with the U.S. and wanted to surrender months before Hiroshima and the Japanese militarists, who were bloodthirsty warmongers and wanted to continue the war, such as General Umezu and Admiral Toyoda. They also make no distinction between the senior Japanese military officers who opposed the militarists and wanted to end the war and the militarists.

Two, the Japanese military committed such horrible war crimes and on such a large scale that, understandably, few people are inclined to feel any sympathy toward the Japanese as a whole, even though the vast majority of Japanese civilians knew nothing about the war crimes until after the war, and even though the military often acted without the government's knowledge and/or approval.

One, so what. First and foremost I know of no author that lumps all the Japanese into one category. You state Americans, and again, so what, average Americans do not make strategic decisions. It really does not matter if some people were willing to surrender, the entire country was at war, aside from their personal feelings.

 

[elektra]

Here are the two basic problems when talking about Imperial Japan and World War II:

One, many conservatives and liberals alike lump all Japanese into a single entity. They make no distinction between the Japanese officers and soldiers who were vicious and barbaric and those who were not. They make no distinction between Japan's civilian leaders who opposed war with the U.S. and wanted to surrender months before Hiroshima and the Japanese militarists, who were bloodthirsty warmongers and wanted to continue the war, such as General Umezu and Admiral Toyoda. They also make no distinction between the senior Japanese military officers who opposed the militarists and wanted to end the war and the militarists.

Two, the Japanese military committed such horrible war crimes and on such a large scale that, understandably, few people are inclined to feel any sympathy toward the Japanese as a whole, even though the vast majority of Japanese civilians knew nothing about the war crimes until after the war, and even though the military often acted without the government's knowledge and/or approval.

Two, your second point is even more irrelevant. The military was the government. Most knew of the war crimes. We knew of the Japanese atrocities long before the end of the war. The Japanese sent pictures home of the atrocities. They were proud of their acts. It was the medieval culture they still largely lived.

And of course, both points had no bearing, on how we conducted ourselves.

 

[elektra]

(2) The best thing that ever had happened to the Yankees had been 9/11.

Which of this two sentences is more stupid?

Both after you quote one and make up the other, they reflect on you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What shows only that the Japanese had been extremely desperated and had not been able to win this war. Under such conditions a peace agreement should not had been a big problem for everyone who did not suffer an "everything or nothing" mentality.

The Japanese suffered from exactly that "everything or nothing" mentality. The only peace proposal they were willing to accept was a return to status quo ante of December 5th, 1941, with the exception of giving up some territories already controlled by the Nationalist Chinese or Allies. No war crimes trials for the leadership, other war crimes trials in Japanese courts and under the control of the Imperial Japanese Government, any disarmament would be carried out by the Japanese and completely under Japanese supervision. That works out to no war crimes trials because the Japanese didn't consider anything their troops did war crimes and no real disarmament either. The Japanese Government was prepared to drown Allied invasion forces in oceans of both Japanese and Allied blood to get those terms accepted.

 

[Mushroom]

Under such conditions a peace agreement should not had been a big problem for everyone who did not suffer an "everything or nothing" mentality.

And by saying that, it shows you understand nothing of Japan in the early Showa era.

Peace was not possible short of destroying Japan as a nation and a people. Look at the meetings with the Privy Council. Before the bombs were dropped, it was 6-0 in favor of continuing the war no matter what. After the first bomb was dropped, it finally went to 5-1 in favor of war. It took 2 bombs, the declaration of war by the Soviets, and even after that and days later it finally deadlocked at 3-3. That is when the Emperor famously case the tiebreaking vote and ended the war.

And there was still a coup attempt and several mutinies in Japan by hardliners that wanted to keep fighting no matter what the cost.

This was a nation that was so arrogant, that even when they were largely reduced to their home islands and part of China, they still thought that they could dictate terms that favored them as if they were winning. They had been trying to propose an armistice for months prior to that, with exactly those terms. No occupation, no war crime trials, all Allied forces on Japanese soil leave, all occupied Allied territory be demilitarized and turned over to Japan to administer.

The terms were so laughable that Sweden, Switzerland, and the Soviets refused to even present them to the Allied Powers. Because they all knew that they would lose status in the eyes of the Allies if they even presented something so horrible. Japan literally was trying to turn the clock back to December 1941, and thought the rest of the would would agree and pretend the war never happened.

You can not negotiate with that. Japan refused to negotiate, and outright and publicly rejected any attempt made at negotiation. People often think of the Germans when they hear the phrase "Master Race". But they were pikers compared to the arrogance of Japan in that era.

 

[Mushroom]

They make no distinction between Japan's civilian leaders who opposed war with the U.S. and wanted to surrender months before Hiroshima and the Japanese militarists, who were bloodthirsty warmongers and wanted to continue the war, such as General Umezu and Admiral Toyoda.

You are trying to turn this into some kind of internal political argument. Which does not apply in this era.

Emperor Showa was not only the Emperor, he was the descendent of their Gods. It was also religious, and all would bow to his will without thinking.

What happened in the week prior to the Golden Voice broadcast was amazing when analyzed. The Emperor had no voice in his own Privy Council, he was literally not allowed to speak unless the council was deadlocked. Which happened exactly once in history, at that time. And when for the first time an Emperor was allowed to cast a vote, he sided with the faction to end the war.

At which point the other 3 immediately changed their vote, and it became unanimous.

In the culture, duty comes before all else. Even death is preferable to surrender. They were caught in a cultural trap and there was no way out of it.