|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2002 : 08:53:52 [Permalink]
|
What Slater's web site describes is a massive civil defense effort by a people that were about to get the shit kicked out of them. Not much more.
"However, the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack."
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
There was more military damage done to Nagasaki, than Hiroshima, mainly because it that bomb was a stronger weapon.
The U.S. knew that Japan would surrender, and ended up allowing them to surrender with the same provisions that Japan had wanted all along.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 05/31/2002 09:10:57 |
 |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 08:58:03 [Permalink]
|
As I've stated earier in this thread, I don't agree with the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were CaHs -- though I'm willing to consider a description of "war crime", especially for the second bombing.
However, the ongoing debate has produced some claims (on both sides) that are simply wrong factually. I feel it's important to correct those factual errors.
Claim 1: the Japanese government and/or the citizens of Hiroshima were warned prior to the nuclear attack. This is simply not true, as any cursory reading of the history of the event will show. The U.S. government (specifically, the Target Committee and Interim Committee that set the policy for the use of the new weapons) considered the possibility of warnings and/or demonstrations, but rejected them for several reasons. Two of those reasons were that the failure of a demonstration would be politically disastrous, giving "aid and comfort" to the Japanese militarists; and that a warning might allow the Japanese to move American POWs into the announced target areas. There can be no debate about this -- U.S. government records affirm it: Hiroshima's nuclear bombing was quite consciously a surprise attack.
Claim 2: Hiroshima was primarily a military target. This is somewhat more arguable, since Hiroshima was a military center of some importance. However, it had a civilian population of about 280,000 vs. a military presence of some 43,000. This ratio is not unlike that of several American cities during WWII (San Diego, for example). In my opinion, this makes Hiroshima a primarily civilian target. There may have been no place in Japan that offered a truly military target for a nuclear weapon -- indeed, such a thing may not be possible in any country, at any time. Nuclear explosions are, in most cases, far too large and destructive to be considered "precision targeting", especially when radiation and fallout effects are considered.
Claim 3: U.S. policy was to attack only Japanese military targets with nuclear weapons. Not true. Many members of government (including Truman) gave lip service to this notion, both before and after the events. But the guidelines used by the Targeting Committee did not make this a consideration. The actual criteria varied somewhat over the time period (roughly May through July 1945), but they generally included:
a) a major urban-industrial area of Japan
b) essentially untouched by earlier air raids (for uncomplicated post-bombing damage assessment)
c) visual bombing
d) B-29 range no more than 1500 miles
Some other considerations were taken into account, including the military nature of the target, the psychological effect that the target's destruction would have on the Japanese, and that the area be large enough so that the effects would be confined within it, so that the power of the bomb could be accurately assessed. None of these were given great weight. For example, Kyoto was originally at the top of the target list, and it fit nicely with the psychological and size criteria; but it was removed by personal fiat of Secretary of War Stimson, who felt it was too important historically.
continued...
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Claim 4: The A-bombs were dropped primarily to save American lives. This was certainly on the minds of the American decision-makers, but it was far from the only consideration. The bombs seemed almost to have a life of their own. Once they became available, it seemed impossible to stop the momentum of using them. Many factors were involved, including all of the following:
a) getting a return on the billions of dollars invested in the Manhattan Project
b) demonstrating to the Soviets that the bombs were real and that the U.S. was willing to use them
c) ending the war quickly so the Russian invasion of Manchuria wouldn't result in Soviet expansion into northeast Asia or Japan proper
d) giving the entire world a "shock treatment", so everyone would understand the sea-change in geopolitics that the bombs implied
e) curiosity as to the effects of nuclear weapons on a city (thought to be important data for future policy decisions)
Claim 5: U.S. decision-making on the use of the bombs was monolithic and entirely rational. I guess no one has stated this explicitly, but I think it's implied by statements made by both sides in the debate. However, it's not true at all that American policymakers were of one voice on this issue. Even the two committees with direct responsibility for the targeting decision were quite different and had very different agendas. The Targeting Committee was a creature of the Manhattan Project. It included scientists and military people, but with no representatives of the administration (at first). The Interim Committee was an all-civilian group based in Washington. The differing emphasis should be obvious.
Even within the committees, however, there were a range of views. The scientists and military elements in the Targeting Committee were not always dancing to the same tune; and in the Interim Committee, viewpoints ranged from Stimson's (he was a long-time opponent of indiscriminate bombings, who was deeply disturbed by events like the Dresden and Tokyo firebombings) to James Byrnes (the soon-to-be Secretary of State, who had little concept of the bomb's power and paradigm-shifting implications, but was a hawk when it came to containing Soviet expansion).
Claim 6: The Japanese would have surrendered without the use of the bombs. Of course, a "woulda-coulda" argument has little chance of getting anywhere. However, at the start of August, the Japanese were presented with the Potsdam Declaration, which outlined the terms of the "unconditional surrender" the Allies were demanding. These were, to all extents and purposes, identical to those the Japanese ultimately agreed to. However, they were rejected -- or rather, "ignored with silent contempt" -- by the Japanese militarist govenment.
Remember, Japan was not controlled by the Emperor. He was largely a figurehead, with little real power. He could not have single-handedly surrendered even if he'd wanted to. It was the military government that had to agree to any surrender.
Would the Japanese ultimately have surrendered if the bombs weren't used? Sure. Would they have done so with no invasion of the home islands? Possibly. Would there have been any significant difference in Japanese casualties if the bombs weren't used? Doubtful -- the same targets would have been destroyed by conventional bombing. It's quite conceivable that the bombs saved Japanese lives, compared to a further six months of war.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:04:14 [Permalink]
|
One final thought, not directly related to the above points. I believe that the prevailing American attitudes toward the Japanese made it far easier to drop the bomb. Rightly or wrongly, the Japanese people, as a whole, were perceived to be fanatical, primitive, and savage by most American decision-makers. Call it racism, ignorance, xenophobia, or whatever you like; but the decision might well have been different if the bomb had been ready before the end of the war in Europe.
Unless Hitler had the bomb too, I don't believe the Allies would have used it against German or Italian targets -- at least not quite so readily, or with so little moral compunction. Then again, we have Hamburg and Dresden to consider.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:17:14 [Permalink]
|
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#jstetw
"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."
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:27:02 [Permalink]
|
A lot of things are obvious after the fact. It's not so easy before.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:29:11 [Permalink]
|
Quoting Howard Zinn:
'...as Gar Alperovitz and his team of researchers documented in great detail in THE DECISION TO DROP THE ATOMIC BOMB, there is strong evidence that Truman was listening to his closest advisor, James Byrnes, who saw the bomb as showing off American power to the Russians. Byrnes said the bomb "could let us dictate the terms of ending the war."'
'In his recent book, FREEDOM FROM FEAR, Davfid Kennedy quotes Secdretary of State Cordell Hull advising Byrnes, before the Potsdam Conference which decided on unconditional surrender, that "terrible political repercussions would follow in the U.S." if the unconditional surrender principle would be abndoned. The president would be "crucified" if he did that, Byrnes said. Kennedy writes: "Byrnes accordingly repudiated the suggestions of Leahy, McCloy, Grew and Stimson". (All of whom were willing to relax the "unconditonal surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war -- the retention of the emperor.)'
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:32:05 [Permalink]
|
So, you're excusing Japanese and German crimes because it's too easy to second guess them?
quote:
A lot of things are obvious after the fact. It's not so easy before.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I said nothing about that. Throw that out if you want to look foolish.
@tomic
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 10:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Again, the rules only apply to the other guy, and I'm the one that appears foolish. Wonderful.
quote:
Gorgo, I said nothing about that. Throw that out if you want to look foolish.
@tomic
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 10:16:07 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, you need to make a point worth responding to before I do so again.
@tomic
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 10:21:14 [Permalink]
|
I feel that is confusing fighting a war against the perpetrator and targetting civilains during that war. The latter is a crime.
It is also a waste of time and money. The civilians aren't the ones who are shooting at you. No one here is arguing the idea that targeting civilians is a good idea. They weren't the targets.
That being said, it does not make every action taken by the U.S. during the war morally right.
If anybody had ever said that the United States can do no wrong that might be a valid point for you to make. Since no one did say, or even imply, that, it becomes a classic "strawman" argument.
Not having miltary bases and instalations in cities is a North American luxury. First and formost there is lots of land here.
So now you are going to revise geography? Japan is just one large city, with no country side?
Second, even if older nations, Europe for example are now deomocratic it was not always the case and that has left a tradition of urban military instalations.
And in time of war they have been attacked. That's the point.
The shield argument does not have teeth.
Then again I ask, what do civilians have to do with air defense?
There was no way that the Americans would anounce beforehand they were going to drop a big ass bomb on Hiroshima.
Odd you have no trouble thinking the Americans were a bunch of cold blooded murders. But you can't get your mind around Americans behaving as they always have behaved.
First, what if it did not work,
So what if it didn't work? Last weekend the US went on high alert because some Taliban big shot said there would be a major terror attack. It never happened, but we spent millions preparing for it. Score one more for the Taliban. They aren't embarrassed.
second what would be the point there was no context to place such a warning in and it could not have been believed.
So now the Americans are too stupid to write a clear warning note in Japanese? Why were the civilians stopped from evacuating if they didn't know that they should evacuate to begin with?
You keep trying to make the Japanese look bad. hey I know they were bad. To quote my mom, "two wrongs do not make a right."
I take it that your mother was never a Japanese "comfort girl."
We weren't in the wrong.
What happened to the Japanese in the U.S and Canada for that matter, is well known. Maybe you could write it in Candian english
Is it well known?
I know that just recently here in the Bay Area the Japanese held a reenactment of their boarding the trains for the camps to commemorate the 60th anniversary. But they have left out a major part of the story and they seem to have forgotten the difference between Issei and Nisei.
One of the things that is never mentioned is that in the decade before the start of the Pacific war there was an influx of Japanese into every city around the Pacific rim. These people became model citizens of where ever they went. Mostly small business owners who belonged to Japanese social clubs and fraternal orders. Like most people who have moved to a new country they were in constant contact with their friends back home, letting them know every detail of their new lives.
When the Japanese attacked each of these cities they not only had complete intelligence but the cities were already thrown into turmoil because of sabotage on the eves of the attack. The citizens of these cities found that they were fighting Japanese from without and from within at the same time.
These people were known by the collective name of the "Fifth Column." It was a brilliant long-range military tactic and worked beautifully in Korea, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Seeing what had happened in all of these places the RCMP immediately investigated the Issei community of "loyal, hard working businessmen" in Canada. They determined that this group represented a clear and present danger to the security of Canada, and took immediate action.
These Japanese people had committed no crimes. They were all model citizens. You couldn't ask for nicer folks, they were involved in every aspect of the community. What was done to them was definitely illegal and a clear violation of their civil rights. After all you can't lock a person up for what they might do.
There is a chance that these groups in Canada and the US actually were the innocents that they claim to be to this day. The fact that that would make them unique among ALL the many identical groups doesn't mean that they weren't.
Their "uniqueness" however does cast a more realistic light on the intentions and motives of the RCMP and the Canadian government than one gets to hear on PBS.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 10:51:42 [Permalink]
|
As you can see, I have not adopted those restrictions for myself.
quote:
Gorgo, you need to make a point worth responding to before I do so again.
@tomic
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 11:46:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Claim 1: the Japanese government and/or the citizens of Hiroshima were warned prior to the nuclear attack. This is simply not true, as any cursory reading of the history of the event will show. The U.S. government (specifically, the Target Committee and Interim Committee that set the policy for the use of the new weapons) considered the possibility of warnings and/or demonstrations, but rejected them for several reasons. Two of those reasons were that the failure of a demonstration would be politically disastrous, giving "aid and comfort" to the Japanese militarists; and that a warning might allow the Japanese to move American POWs into the announced target areas. There can be no debate about this -- U.S. government records affirm it: Hiroshima's nuclear bombing was quite consciously a surprise attack.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html
[oops, this appears to be a leaflet dropped after Hiroshima. Still interesting...]
[I should make a new post, since my additions may be missed...]
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/31/2002 11:48:46
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/31/2002 12:50:55
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/31/2002 12:51:47 |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 11:56:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I feel that is confusing fighting a war against the perpetrator and targetting civilains during that war. The latter is a crime.
It is also a waste of time and money. The civilians aren't the ones who are shooting at you. No one here is arguing the idea that targeting civilians is a good idea. They weren't the targets.
Well I guess that might be the nub of my disagreement with you. Civilians were most certainly the targets. If the intention was to destroy military bases and the like the B 29 was more than capable of doing the job. quote:
That being said, it does not make every action taken by the U.S. during the war morally right.
If anybody had ever said that the United States can do no wrong that might be a valid point for you to make. Since no one did say, or even imply, that, it becomes a classic "strawman" argument.
It is perhaps you that is stuffing straw into my clothes. I was merely clarifing the previous sentence. In which I wrote that the US was morally right to go to war. I wanted to limit scope of what I meant by that. Nor does what I wrote imply anybody had said that the Americans were always right. If that was not clear then I apologize. quote:
Not having miltary bases and instalations in cities is a North American luxury. First and formost there is lots of land here.
So now you are going to revise geography? Japan is just one large city, with no country side?
Second, even if older nations, Europe for example are now deomocratic it was not always the case and that has left a tradition of urban military instalations.
And in time of war they have been attacked. That's the point.
I stand by my point. Land was and is at a premium in Japan, plus for domestic reasons some military presence would be wanted to keep the people 'happy'. Again with the fiction that the city was a military target. If reducing the military threat of these two cities was so important please refer again to the use of the B 29 above. quote:
There was no way that the Americans would anounce beforehand they were going to drop a big ass bomb on Hiroshima.
Odd you have no trouble thinking the Americans were a bunch of cold blooded murders. But you can't get your mind around Americans behaving as they always have behaved.
Thats right, because it is my understanding that there was no warning. You said there was and I did ask for a reference if you could be so kind. There is a lot of straw around here. I never said that Americans are or were cold blooded murders. The assumption is your own. I do believe bombing cities in a manner guaranteed to kill lots of civilians is a crime. quote:
First, what if it did not work,
So what if it didn't work? Last weekend the US went on high alert because some Taliban big shot said there would be a major terror attack. It never happened, but we spent millions preparing for it. Score one more for the Taliban. They aren't embarrassed.
Not even close to the same thing. One is taking resonable or even excessive precautions against a realistic, low probablity threat. Plus you do not know it did not work and indeed prevented an attack by the Taliban. The other was throwing a lot of prestige into a major display of power intended to impress. quote:
second what would be the point there was no context to place such a warning in and it could not have been believed.
So now the Americans are too stupid to write a clear warning note in Japanese? Why were the civilians stopped from evacuating if they didn't know that they should evacuate to begin with?
Huh??? I can't even guess at where this is coming from. The issue is whether the Japanese would believe the note. In case you are unaware of it countries at war often try to decieve one another. They are never sure when the information given is the truth or another attemp at deception. The Germans planned their defence of Europe based on the belief in an army that did not exist. It would have been reasonable to expect the Japanese to be skeptical. quote:
You keep trying to make the Japanese look bad. hey I know they were bad. To quote my mom, "two wrongs do not make a right."
I take it that your mother was never a Japanese "comfort girl."
We weren't in the wrong.
No she was not. In regards to the A-bomb, I believe you were wrong. The issue of the comfort girl and all the others is a matter of justice. Their claims are still not recognised by the Japanese and there has been no justice. Bomb or no bomb. quote:
What happened to the Japanese in the U.S and Canada for that matter, is well known. Maybe you could write it in Candian english
Is it well known?
In Canada it is. About 10 years ago, give or take a few years the surviviors were compensated. There were some objections from the Hong Kong verterans, on the ground that the Japanese had not acknowledged or compensated them for their suffering as POWs. It was decided to go ahead.
I do not know what happened in the US other than there was internment. I concede that it may have been prudent at the time to limit the movement of the Japanese for a time. The chance for spies amongst them was reasonable at the time. Here their property was siezed without adaquate compensation, if any at all and the internment lasted far far longer than was needed. The whole episode was a major black mark for my country. The government of the time never really took the possiblity of a Japanese invasion seriously. At one point it was reasoned that it was for there own saftey. Maybe, to our credit, maybe not, one of these internees' daughter is now the Governor General of the country. She may have been interned herself but I am not sure.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
