Cooperation with evil - nuclear weapons

[GKMotley]

Indeed. And Anami was hoping we would come. The demonstrated effectiveness of the bombs made him realize that there would not be an invasion, hence no bloodbath to cause us to reconsider the unconditional surrender… And his plans were dead. And the Voice of the Crane decreed surrender.

 

[GKMotley]

And fortunately, it wasn’t required, for an unconditional surrender there.

 

[GKMotley]

You thinking of the B-36?

The first design of what became the B-52 (greatly changed), originated in the war, too.

 

[AlNg]

He stated that he believed that the atomic bomb would not even work.

That is irrelevant to his statement 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.…"

 

[MPat]

Of course I have.

Try Frank. Try Kort. You will see them again, there. And elsewhere.

Um, I’m afraid that merely calling something a “unicorn” does not really count as an “argument”…

References to books might support an argument, or they might refer to the place where the argument was first presented, but they are not arguments when they are all alone.

Insults are not really arguments either. Nor is saying that one’s opponent knows nothing about history, nor is belittling one’s opponent in some other way. You might use that to construct an ad hominem argument, but it looks like even that hasn’t been offered here.

You have also offered some numbers. But numbers (which were also not properly documented), while they can be used in arguments, are not arguments all by themselves either.

Thus I’m afraid that you haven’t offered any actual arguments to support your position yet.

And, by the way, articles like The Hiroshima Myth | Mises Institute seem to indicate that even Churchill thought “unconditional surrender” should have been softened (or are you going to claim that’s a lie?). Apparently, it is possible to be a British Prime Minister, win a war, and believe in some “unicorns”?

Perhaps it is time to admit that you actually have to offer arguments, and not just “unicorns!!!”…

I do wear a B-52 cap, from time to time.One of the many programs I worked on, D, G and H models.

So, are we supposed to take this fact and conclude that you also think you would be considered a war criminal (or an accomplice) if targeting civilians would be found to be a war crime?

I’m afraid that otherwise that is not really relevant for discussion…

 

[MonteRCMS]

Clearly, the only acceptable outcome to the World War II in the Pacific … based on these various discussion points … would be for the United States to surrender.

 

[GKMotley]

No, they weren’t. Defeated they were, by any reasonable standard. Prepared to surrender, they were not. They were ready to consider negotiating, to achieve some form of conditional surrender, involving (depending on which member of the Supreme Committee you consider) from 1 to 4 , down from 5, unacceptable conditions. Magic/Ultra traffic revealed precisely what they were doing, to the appropriate ears. Which included Leahy. That he stated they were prepared to surrender is not an accurate statement of the facts. This is not a serious part of the discussion of the bombs. It is a serious statement only of Leahy’s position on their morality.

 

[GKMotley]

The thought has occurred to me.

 

[GKMotley]

Nope. Churchill had mixed thoughts on the matter. Churchill was not responsible for the decision, though the use of the bombs was discussed with him, as we jointly had agreed to do. As to your unicorns (and they are yours), the adults are talking

No, as to the cap. Nor my LGM-30G sweatshirt. .

No, as to your ideas of what relevant.

 

[MPat]

Clearly, the only acceptable outcome to the World War II in the Pacific … based on these various discussion points … would be for the United States to surrender.

Well, that’s what happens when the side supporting targeting civilians exaggerates problems with all other approaches.

And that’s how we can be sure that they are exaggerating. After all, the idea that the victors of the war have to surrender is sufficiently absurd for “reductio ad absurdum”.

Nope. Churchill had mixed thoughts on the matter. Churchill was not responsible for the decision, though the use of the bombs was discussed with him, as we jointly had agreed to do. As to your unicorns (and they are yours), the adults are talking

Those “adults” sure seem to be talking in a rather childish way…

And, apparently, those “adults” can’t cite sources… (Like the ones that would show what “had mixed thoughts” actually refers to.)

 

[GKMotley]

You are irresistible. Churchill had mixed thoughts about the unconditional surrender portion, as far back as Casablanca and Yalta, and counseled Truman on modifying the conditions to allow the continuance of the kokutai.

As to the use of the bomb, see TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY, chapter 19.

Stop tempting me.

 

[MPat]

You are irresistible. Churchill had mixed thoughts about the unconditional surrender portion, as far back as Yalta, and counseled Truman on modifying the conditions to allow the continuance of the kokutai.

So, you also agree that he believed in what you call “unicorns”.

Which, of course, shows that at least this (achieving victory sooner by slightly modifying the offered terms of surrender) is an alternative that has to be taken seriously. And not just dismissed with a shout “Unicorns!!!”.

As to the use of the bomb, see TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY, chapter 19.

So, providing sources wasn’t all that hard, was it?

Stop tempting me.

You know, you are free to leave this discussion at any time, if you want.

And if you choose to stay and want to claim to be an “adult”, try to actually act like one.

 

[GKMotley]

What you see is what you get.

No, supplying sources is fairly simple. One goes to the bookcase, assuming that one has a bookcase and finds sources. If there is a point to be sourced. As you see above. If one has books,on a bookcase, relevant to the issue.

The slight modification was actually made (though Churchill’s quibbles with the concept had nothing to do with Japan, originally, but the general idea, as brought up at Casablanca) in Byrnes’ letter replying to the Japanese tentative agreement to the Potsdam conditions, assuming that they did not compromise the Emperor’s status “as a sovereign ruler”. This came after the two bombs had destroyed the Anami four condition position. Prior to that and to the rigged gozen kaigan.which followed them, Anami and his clique would continue to block any acceptance of the one condition group. Byrnes replied in words implying more than they stated, but allowing the perceptive (Suzki and Togo) to see that the issue of the Emperor’s status would ultimately lie in the hands of the Japanese people. This was adequate, to the Emperor. and, eventually to the entire cabinet, that had to agree to the action. After the bombs had made the ketsu-go plan null and void, taking Anami off the table.

Frank’s chapter 18 is recommended. The enquirer might also look into Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, chap. 3 Or Sadao Asada’s “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender -A Reconsideration” in Newman’s HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY. Or a lot of other titles,

This isn’t a discussion. It’s instruction. It certainly is in my hands to leave you in your current state.

 

[JimG]

It should be noted that the fire bombing of Japanese cities, particularly Tokyo, inflicted more casualties than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Non-combatant civilians, men, women, and children were always at risk of death both in the European theater and in the Pacific theater. No one had smart bombs in those days.

 

[AlNg]

Well, that’s what happens when the side supporting targeting civilians exaggerates problems with all other approaches.

And that’s how we can be sure that they are exaggerating. After all, the idea that the victors of the war have to surrender is sufficiently absurd for “reductio ad absurdum”.

Yes. It was wrong to kill so many innocent Japanese children. Japan was ready and willing to surrender on terms not much different from what was finally agreed to.

 

[AlNg]

I continue be fascinated by the number of posters who base their moral responses on what might be called “American ideology” (I don’t mean the “Americanism” of Pius XIII) rather than Catholic teaching and tradition.

There are others here who agree with you.

 

[JimG]

As long as we are speculating about how the war might have proceeded without the use of the two atomic bombs, here is my own speculation:

After FDR’s death, Truman becomes president. He is advised for the first time about the existence of the atomic bombs. (This much is history.)

Truman refuses to use the atomic bombs, and continues with the carpet bombing of Japanese cities. More lives are lost on both sides, hundreds of thousands per month. Shortly, he gives the go ahead for invasion of the home islands, resulting in even more drastic loss of life. Japan proceeds with its final kamikaze attacks and last stand defense. Ultimately the invasion succeeds and Japan surrenders.

A few years later, it becomes public knowledge that Truman had atomic weapons at his disposal and did not use them to end the war. He becomes the most vilified president in U.S. history, being blamed for hundreds of thousands of needless casualties,especially by wives and mothers with fresh memories of the dead from the invasion.

Decades later, posters on CAF debate about the morality of Truman allowing the war to drag on when he had the means to end it. (“He wasted the effort of he Manhattan Project.” “If FDR had lived, he would have used the bombs to end the war.”) We still would be having lengthy debate threads.

 

[Maximilian75]

Fun fact- A former principal of my catholic prep school was on the committee that wrote this

 

[GKMotley]

Or, one can read WHAT IF?: EMINENT HISTORIANS IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, Vol 2, ed. Robert Cowley. Specifically, the story “No Bomb-No End: The Operation Olympic Disaster”. By an eminent historian. Richard Frank.

Yours is pretty good.

 

[undead_rat]

A much more likely scenario after the A-bombs are not dropped: Hirohito receives Truman’s message that the Emperor of Japan may remain as such if the Japanese people so chose and makes exactly the same decision. He orders his armed forces to surrender in order to save his own neck.

It’s more than pure speculation that it was the dropping of the A-bombs that forced Japan to surrender. It is actually the insidious propaganda of the US government in its attempt to justify its decision to use the A-bomb for the unnecessary purpose of forestalling Russian advances in the far east. And when these A-bomb attacks had not produced a surrender, Truman made his last, desperate play of giving up the USA’s unconditional surrender and allowing the war-criminal Hirohito to escape trial. Still more Truman administration propaganda is the silly idea that Hirohito was necessary for the post surrender administration of Japan.