Posted on 08/10/2013 6:09:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
That was a conclusion of the 1946 U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman in the wake of World War II.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945. In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”
Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
I put a lot of weight on the assessments of the military leaders at the time and the contemporaneous commission that studied it. My colleague Michael Barone, who defends the bombing, has other sources — a historian and Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — that lead him to conclude Japan would not have surrendered.
This confusion is not surprising. For one thing, there’s what we call the “fog of war” — it’s really hard to know what’s happening currently in war, and it’s even harder to predict which way the war will break.
Second, more generally, there’s the imperfection of human knowledge. Humans are very limited in their ability to predict the future and to determine the consequences of their actions in complex situations like war.
So, if Barone wants to stick with Moynihan’s and the New Republic’s assessments of the war while I stick with the assessments of Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Leahy, and Truman’s own commission, that’s fine. The question — would Japan have surrendered without our bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? — can’t be answered with certainty today, nor could it have been answered in August 1945.
But this fog, this imperfect knowledge, ought to diminish the weight given to the consequentialist type of reasoning Barone employs — “Many, many more deaths, of Japanese as well as Americans, would have occurred if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
We don’t know that. That’s a guess. We didn’t know that at the time. If Pres. Truman believed that, it was a prediction of the future — and a prediction that clashed with the predictions of the military leaders.
Given all this uncertainty, I would lend more weight to principle. One principle nearly everyone shares is this: it’s wrong to deliberately kill babies and innocent children. The same goes for Japanese women, elderly, disabled, and any other non-combatants. Even if you don’t hold this as an absolute principle, most people hold it as a pretty firm rule.
To justify the bombing, you need to scuttle this principle in exchange for consequentialist thinking. With a principle as strong as “don’t murder kids” I think you’d need a lot more certainty than Truman could have had.
I don’t think Truman’s decision was motivated by evil. I’ll even add that it was an understandable decision. But I think it was the wrong one.
I can’t seem to locate it now, but a picture turned up awhile ago of a massive building complex up in the San Francisco Bay area....WWII era buildings...there was some debate about their purpose....turns out it was a huge morgue facility built to process the expected MILLION+ casualties from the impending invasion of Japan.
Dropping the bombs was not only the moral and ethical thing to do, it was in fact a humane act, for BOTH sides. Anyone who says otherwise I believe to be morally retarded.
Thank God you didn’t have to go....and thank God for so many like your brother who did what they had to do.
” ‘Frankly I trust Eisenhower’s opinion on this matter more than you.’
... now reason out how a blockade would work, even absent our continued air and naval attacks. ...
... a blockade working was inevitable, but a war planner figures out the costs before planning or approving a Course of Action (COA). A blockade didn’t meet the objectives unless the only objective was victory without a timetable.”
I salute these suggestions.
As a purely practical point, it ought to be emphasized that Allied destruction of Imperial Japanese transport (aka “merchant”) shipping was by late 1944 already well under way, creating a blockade of increasing stringency. Submarines sank most, with the mining of coastal shipping harbors by B-29s (the only warplane with the payload to deliver anything larger than pinpricks), Home Island shipping was substantially interdicted.
Further blockade might have induced surrender eventually, but the timeline is inherently uncertain. Given the ever-shortening supply of foodstuffs, starvation deaths in the multiple tens of millions were not out of the question.
It’s more than a little disingenuous to cite stray misgivings from GEN Eisenhower and other senior officers, as if they constituted central, incontrovertible theses of a fully thought-out policies, unverifiable theses at that.
What’s really puzzling, is why the likes JCBreckenridge thinks the rest of us ought to care how many enemy deaths happened.
Japanese casualties under such circumstances are irrelevant.
They attacked us, and over the course of a few days in August 1945, we ended a World War that had lasted almost a decade, and cost countless millions of lives.
Hand-wringing generals opinions notwithstanding, I bet if Eisenhower had polled the armies under his command, the vote to use the bomb would have been overwhelming.
Pieces like this epitomize the folly of historical revisionism.
” ... please look it up yourself before commenting on historiography ... seven liberal arts ... Aquinas ... seven sciences ... rhetoric, logic and oratory ...”
How sad that this is so difficult for so many.
Percy Bridgman is too harsh, one guesses (I’ve garnered similar horrified reactions from more than one respondent, and each one who divulged any background was infatuated with the classical/theological structures of knowledge), so I’ll backtrack farther:
I am interested in what a thing is, not what it’s called.
The Eurotrash approach - scholasticism, rhetoric, oratory, hierarchy, settled theology, orthodoxy - is to categorize, subsume, ultimately to limit, with a view to control. To be candid, attempts to force-fit all these High Middle Ages concepts onto the modern world can only assure chaos. Kneeling before the throne of Almighty Authority does not equip us to deal with reality.
Calling “history” a discipline does not make it a profession. Not even when one dresses it up as “historiography” and points out that it’s older than old. Much of it has been literary, and of superior quality, but that doesn’t make it more accurate. Nor less; there is nothing in the formulation to tell us about the accuracy of its content.
In the pause between Nagasaki and the surrender, we were losing 7000 men a week! Further delay for a blockade was unconscionable, and that was with two cities destroyed by atomic weapons. To be fair, I doubt JC cared about Jap casualties, the problem with a blockade was our casualties, including those of the POWs with no end in sight. The invasion was planned for Nov45, further plans for Homshu in Mar46. The expected friendly casualties are well documented and with every civilian a combatant the bloodletting would have harden the sides and made a peace difficult when we prevailed.
“To be fair, I doubt JC cared about Jap casualties”
Do you like putting words in my mouth?
Well, I do have a question for you.
Do you care about Japanese casualties?
As I have said, I have followed this very interesting thread. Your posts in particular, are very intriguing. In one post you indicated that a blockade would not preclude naval and air attacks. Would that not have ultimately caused more death to civilians in the long run? From what I have read, the carpet bombing of Tokyo was devastating.
And would not extending the war in such a manner increased Allied forces deaths as well?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth but I ask one sincere question...is your point of contention that there was more than one way to end the war? No matter how inefficient it may have been?
“Do you care about Japanese casualties?”
Yes I do. I’m arguing that there were other options that would have succeeded in winning the war with Japan. I believe that while the atomic bomb was the best option, it was not the only option.
“Would that not have ultimately caused more death to civilians in the long run?”
Yes, it would have, even with a blockade and with naval and air attacks, the casulty ratio in Japan would not even approach the casulties Japan inflicted on China. The only two belligerants with positive ratios of civilian deaths to combantant deaths were Japan and Germany, which should tell you everything you need to know about the second world war.
“No matter how inefficient it may have been?”
I believe Japan would have surrendered after the winter, probably in February or March of 1946, had the blockade been used. I do not believe that Russia would have had sufficient forces to succeed in a landing in Hokkaido, given logistics and the presence of Japanese forces in China and Korea.
You're right, you said you didn't care that we dropped the bomb, you only cared that there are those that consider it the only options (I’m opposed to the a historical nonsense that the bomb was ok because there were no other viable options. ). By your support for a blockade, I should have known that you don't give a shit about casualties, Jap or allied because that is what the blockade would have produced.
By your own estimate (Well, that’s the question isn’t it? How long could they have lasted in 1945? I don’t think they would have been able to hold out through the winter.) Japan being in the N hemisphere, means we would have faced at least 7 more months of war, considering an early spring and the gov't of Japan caving under the blockade, that is 196000 more US dead following the average dead in the week after Nagasaki before surrender, and untold hundreds of thousand dead Japs due to starvation and all the POWs.
“To be fair, I doubt JC cared about Jap casualties”
Right again, you obvious don't give a shit about casualties at all, Allied or Jap. At least you are honest, I guess as a Catholic it is OK depending on the side you're on.
“By your support for a blockade, I should have known that you don’t give a shit about casualties”
I think you missed the part where I said that the atomic bomb was the best option, but that it wasn’t the only one.
At least we got to the heart of the matter here.
“I guess as a Catholic it is OK”
Good thing you got your little 2 minute hate in.
Not if you care about allied casualties, if that is part of the equation than it was the only one.
Good thing you got your little 2 minute hate in.
Not hate at all, but the bomb use is a large part of the asinine argument of just war, perpetuated by Catholics and assorted lefties, apparently not in the catechism, nor infallibly declared and conveniently discarded when you don't agree or if the war/battle involves a Pope. Yet a quick end to a war, lessening the human suffering and death is cast aside for a theory that hasn't worked since siege warfare, and didn't work in the WWII blockade of Germany and the subsequent undersea counter-blockade by the Germans. A blockade of a nation hasn't worked in the modern era, wouldn't have worked in a timely manner against the Japs, and the resulting death and misery resulting from one should appall a Christian. But it doesn't bother you apparently, that in itself says alot about you. A revisionist McNamara of sorts, less than humane in an inhumane situation.
In this thread, I often have to read your posts several times. Sometimes the written word doesn’t convey the thought. But FRiend, you are confusing me on several issues.
“The atomic option was the best...a blockade with naval and air attacks would not even approach the casualties inflicted by Japan to the Chinese.” Different subject all together...and should we have let the Japanese inflict those casualties on the US?
“Civilian deaths with positive ratios to combatant were Japan and Germany..that should tell you all you need to know about WWII.” Actually, it doesn’t. Tell me what you are saying.
You think Japan would have surrendered in Feb or March. I guess that maybe true. There would have been no population, military or land to live on. Of course, the Allies would have lost as well.
So did you want Japan destroyed because of the damage to China? I am truly trying to understand.
“Actually, it doesn’t. Tell me what you are saying.”
Japan inflicted 20 million plus civilian casulties on China in the course of the war. China was our ally. They did not provoke Japan and were invaded.
Japan lost about 2 million, atomic bombs included when the US and the allies fought back. I do not believe that the losses of a blockade for 5-6 months would come anywhere close to tipping the balance between civilian and combatant casulties, let alone matching up with the civilian casulties the Japanese inflicted on China.
“So did you want Japan destroyed because of the damage to China?”
No. I am simply saying that blockade was an option, an inferior one, for several reasons, to the dropping of the atomic bomb.
I am only objecting to the OP here because the OP insisted that the only option for victory over Japan was the atomic bomb. I disagree. There were other, inferior options including Coronet and Olympic. I see blockade as the middle option, preferable to Coronet and Olympic but less so than the dropping of the Atomic bomb.
“Not if you care about allied casualties, if that is part of the equation than it was the only one.”
Again, there were other viable options.
“Not hate at all, but the bomb use is a large part of the asinine argument”
So why muck the waters by making an even dumber argument?
“perpetuated by Catholics and assorted lefties”
Wow, I’m not sure I see the point here. Are you arguing that Eisenhower was a lefty and a Catholic.
“Yet a quick end to a war, lessening the human suffering and death is cast aside for a theory that hasn’t worked since siege warfare, and didn’t work in the WWII blockade of Germany and the subsequent undersea counter-blockade by the Germans.”
I am not arguing that the atomic bombs did not lessen human suffering. I am arguing that blockade was possible. Japan was already suffering from the effects of the blockade - as did Germany at the time.
Blockade does work. Churchill even stated how crucial it was to winning the war - that one did not supply the enemy crucial supplies.
“wouldn’t have worked in a timely manner”
Six months isn’t timely enough?
“the resulting death and misery resulting from one should appall a Christian.”
Defense of the innocent is a good cause for war. That the enemy should fall in a successful defense you do what you have to do to end the war.
“Six months isn’t timely enough?”
No it is not.
Let’s play pretend for a moment. For the moment, let’s pretend that you are a soldier fighting a battle that is dragging on needlessly and could well be killed.
Better yet, let’s pretend that one of your children is fighting a war that could be ended before their death.
“Better yet, let’s pretend that one of your children is fighting a war that could be ended before their death.”
If the primary issue is the potential death of Americans, why not just stop fighting?
The primary issue is doing your duty. As a parent, I would be proud to have a child in the armed forces. Would I be happy if they were home safe and sound with me? Absolutely. But, my child has a job and an obligation.
As General Lee once said, “Do your duty, you cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”
The primary issue is bringing your enemy to their knees and winning the war.
Which we did. Saving American lives was a valuable byproduct. At that time it became a win-win situation.
I believe you answered my question earlier...you feel there was more than one way to end the war. Although that maybe true I can’t see the value in the other options.
As I said upthread..I find your posts intriguing....but very often confusing.
Blockade was never a selected course of action because it couldn’t meet the strategic objectives, at best it was a supporting plan to be executed by the Navy. Proof of that is the war planners had already put in motion the plan for the invasion of the home islands. Logistic planning was already underway, troops were allocated and training. What other ‘viable options’ existed that met the strategic objectives?
“perpetuated by Catholics and assorted lefties” Wow, I’m not sure I see the point here. Are you arguing that Eisenhower was a lefty and a Catholic.
Not at all, just pointing out that the theory is supported by those groups. It hinders those nations that war reluctantly by removing effective weapons from use. It is also a form of ‘past-posting’ used against nation that are successful that seek to hamstring their offensive and defensive capabilities
Blockade does work. Churchill even stated how crucial it was to winning the war - that one did not supply the enemy crucial supplies.
Germany’s surface navy achieved no operational or strategic success in WWII. Its navy’s outstanding component were its U-boats. Germany had no successful merchant fleet either, certainly nothing like the Japanese Marus. Germany’s supply rested on the success or failure of its army in the field. While the Allies in the far east had success against the Jap merchant fleet the home islands were far from ‘blockaded’.
“wouldn’t have worked in a timely manner” Six months isn’t timely enough?
Not if you were a POW or one of the 7000 casualties suffered in the week preceding the surrender, besides this question has already been answered by the war planners. The invasion of Kyushu was laid on for Nov45. Four months after the bombs and the delay was due to the massive numbers of men, supplies and shipping needed. The surrender spared the Japs the three bombs projected to be completed in Oct45. The weapons changed the strategic landscape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.