Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:24:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
523 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Everything I have ever read about WWII Japanese suggests that there was
> > pretty strong belief that they would likely have fought bitterly to the
> > end had something overwhelming happened to make the entire populace
> > recognize that further fighting was futile.
>
> Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know
> what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we
> had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only
> way to show that to the populace. However, after the 1st one didn't work, I
> certainly don't think a 2nd attempt was doing much to change things. But
> either way, I still don't think *both* bombs were necessary. I'm more of the
> mind to say that we should have waited longer to see what would happen.
> After all, Stalin had just joined in the picture, and with the world focused
> on it, I would have held out before attacking major civilian areas.
It tends to be obscure, but there was never a decision to drop Bomb 1, a
pause, and then a decision to drop Bomb 2. The decision was made to drop
two bombs. Were both bombs necessary? Maybe not - they may have eventually
surrendered anyway (while fighting continued). But it should be noted that
the one didn't produce a surrender and two did. It had been a long and
difficult war, Truman wanted it over.
> 2ndly, (which is less important to this particular argument, but I want to
> address nevertheless) doesn't your above statement make the bombings acts of
> terrorism? I mean, maybe you'd argue that it was *justified* terrorism, but
> isn't it terrorism nonetheless?
Was the fire-bombing of Tokyo terrorism? I'd count it as such. There was
this whole mentality within more than one air force that you could win the
war almost exclusively through the use of bombs. Coupled with acts of
barbarism on the other side, it was given a try. It didn't work on Britain,
it didn't work on Japan, it didn't work on Germany. It's a concept pretty
much rejected now, for a variety of reason (mostly it justs ratchets up the
misery of war and doesn't help end the conflict). So were the A-Bombs a
terror weapon? I'd say so. Were they the equivalent of the current
terrorist actions? The circumstances are far different - I wouldn't equate
them as the same. But note we haven't fire-bombed or nuked massive civilian
centers since.
> Well-- didn't the emperor more or less admit he was wrong by surrendering
> unconditionally? Or does that only prove that he was right to surrender? I
> dunno.
Hirohito's surrender speech was a classic bit of face-saving and never once
admitted that Japan did anything wrong. Shoulda lined him up next to Tojo
(who asked pretty much the same question). The political reality dictated
otherwise - and seems to have been wise judging by the results.
>
> > A demonstration of the bomb would not have accomplished a decisive
> > victory. The Japanese civilians would have seen nothing about it. Sure
> > the government might have accepted the destructive capability, but would
> > they have unconditionally surrendered?
>
> Well, considering that it wasn't the people who surrendered, but the
> emperor, under pressure from his advisors, isn't that all that counted, in
> retrospect? I understand that the above may have been logic at the time, and
> is therefore relevant to a moral judgement, but I would argue that in
> actuality, the people's reaction was not necessary to a decision to surrender.
There had to be a face-saving component - it had to be apparent to the
people as well as the cabinent. Look too cowardly and perhaps the people
would forego an Emperor in the future (which they should do, but people like
continuity - just look at the British and their royalty). I doubt they
would have accepted a demonstration. Nor would it have really been
responsible to the American people and their allies to prolong the war
delaying for something of dubious value (arranging such a demo would have
necessitated arranging for Japanese observers, not an easy thing to
accomplish diplomatically and involves risks best avoided (theft of plans,
theft of device, dud, etc.)).
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only way to show that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
