phaedrus

Vork.....

Was waiting all day I see that you have indulged in rather 'generous' interpretation of text ….lets roll.

Catch you around tomorrow

jp

Vorkosigan

Phaedrus:

I'll be willing to revise my position any time you come up with the actual government to government peace feeler from the Japanese, and the actual plan for surrender. The blunt truth is that contacts between the Japanese and US on an informal basis by low-level individuals were cut off by the Japanese.

For example, see the sad tale of diplomat Fujimura, who contacted Allen Dulles in Switzerland and then telegrammed Tokyo every day for weeks, until he was shut down by simply being allowed to drift into nothingness and officially ignored. Far from cutting off the Japanese, the US asked that a high-ranking official be flown out to Switzerland, and even offered to supply security guarantees and transportation. This offer was of course refused. After the war Admiral Yonai apologized for blowing the opportunity.

There was never any plan to surrender. The propaganda you have swallowed is right-wing facist postwar Japanese propaganda. You are buying lies that a few hours of serious research could dispel.

BTW, instead of simply smugly announcing that you are right and I am wrong, can you supply any factual basis for any claim in that website you referenced?

Vorkosigan

the_cave

This might have more to do with the increased militarization of Germany and Japan, especially as seeing how they were losing...countries in the process of losing a war generally start putting anyone in their army who can stand up.

Still, it's informative to note that even allowing for this, as many Polish civilians lost their lives as Germans did, total. And that Soviet civilian casualties were more than twice the German total casualties. This may be in part due to the technologies the Germans and Japanese wielded. I'm sure it also has a lot to do with the concentration camps.

phaedrus

Vork.....

*happy that inspite of the monumental hangover, have been able to respond* Long post ahead….

I get tired from dealing with all this Japanese facist propaganda that the Left has swallowed completely. So I hope to put a rest to this here, and then reference this thread from now on. So my apologies for length.

Oh my, those are strong words. I know people like their own belief system and its foundations, but one should be ready de-learn propaganda and re-learn truth based on the information they come across. Anyhows, let’s see how this conversation progresses and for sure we can start referencing this thread.

No evidence is adduced for this in the article. There was no surrender plan. The government was making plans to relocate to a giant redoubt underneath a mountain in Nagano prefecture outside of Tokyo. It had armed its citizens to fight to the death, and had sequestered thousands of aircraft to defend the home islands.

First of all, when you ask for evidence, you should also provide links for your “notions”.

Am sure that if you had done ‘little’ research you would have come across or ‘known’ about the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), released on July 1, 1946, which came to the conclusion….

Am sure you would want me to point out to your own history and Truman’s files ; ), so here you go my friend….
United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), p28

Just in case you want to read all those telegrams
Japanese Peace Feelers through the Soviet Union

This is your basic highly slanted description. Kase originally wanted to end the war with German help, then argued that they could use the prospect of Russian involvement to force the US to end the war. If you read this discussion in the site you gave us, Phaedrus, you'll find it ignores one basic fact.....

...Tokyo, not Washington, cut Kase legs out from under him. It was Tokyo that refused him. Of course, the site can't mention that, because it would explode their case. Before I will go on, I should mention that because the US was reading Japanese diplomatic intercepts, Washington new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes. But let's move on. Why let facts slow down the parade of lies?


Again, provide links/evidences, otherwise its mere fiction. Why insist on "unconditional surrender"?, to test the stupid bomb???

And i am surprised by your rather generous slanted reading of the text provided in the site.... The “he” in the statement refers to " Donovan Donovan believed not Kase. And again I would like links for your interpretations that “Washington [k]new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes” (especially in light of the report above)

And please do read up on the report to which I have provided the link as to the “peace group” in japan and their efforts.

No context given (it is actually from his famous diary, and totally out of context) and further, Leahy is one man, just as Kase was.

Why is it out of context? Your point being? And am sure if you read the report by US, you will know that it wasn’t “one” man who was working for a peaceful settlement.

The Japanese move to Russia involved forming a military alliance with the Russians to counter US/British alliance, marrying Japanese maritime power to Russian land power. Since Russia coveted Siberian territory, and was dependent on the US for its power, and Japan had no navy, and the Russians would never agree to this, this was a fantasy. This was not a "peace" offer. This was a cease-fire offer that would have left Japanese troops in place throughout Asia and China. The Japanese Ambassador in Moscow tried desperately to get Tokyo to see it was a living in a fantasy world, but to no avail. All his plaintive telegrams asking for the plan to end the war are available in Bruce Lee's Marching Orders. The Americans were reading this correspondence, and knew perfectly well that (a) there was no plan to end the war and (b) the Russians weren't buying.

Uff, such twisted interpretation. Why don’t you go through the telegrams and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report for what the “US” thought?

And some research maybe you would have discovered this….in the “Minutes of Meeting Held at the White House on Monday, 18 June 1945”, this is what admiral leahy said “ADMIRAL LEAHY said that he could not agree with the opinion of may who said to him that unless we force the Japanese into unconditional surrender that we will have lost the war. He feared no menace from Japan in the reasonable future, even if we were unsuccessful in forcing unconditional surrender. What he feared was that our insistence on unconditional surrender would simply result in making the Japanese desperate and thereby result in large casualties. He did not think that such a result was necessary.” Same can be accessed at nuclearfiles.org

In fact, there were several meetings between US and Japanese officials, and the US patiently pursued these. These contacts were cut off by Tokyo, not Washington. US officials tried desperately to get the Japanese to recognize their plight and end the war -- see, for example, the famous Zacharias broadcasts.

Additionally, the idea that the Japanese had to "send out" peace feelers is absurd. The Japanese and the US had been face to face for four years in Switzerland, where representatives met frequently to discuss POW and related issues. All the Japanese had to do was say something through that 24-7 pipeline.

The fact is that Tokyo rejected all peace offers, and that the Emperor want to fight to the end, and had his mind changed only by the Hiroshima bomb.
Further, the debate over the Bomb went on for quite some time, and quite a number of people, not just conservative military leaders, were for it.

Yup just like they are desperately trying to tell the people of Iraq about their plight Again just read the telegrams and give references to your statements. What Japanese did in china and korea was despicable but the answer doesn’t lie in killing “civilians” and that too three bombs ? Tokyo didn’t reject, they didn’t like “unconditional surrender”. In “The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb” , Dennis D. Wainstock said this (p 124, 132)

Emperor wanted to fight till the end???? Read the summary report

Soviet entry did not make Japanese surrender inevitable. In fact, the government, after 2 A-bombs and the invasion of Manchuria, declined to surrender. The Emperor had to order it.

Links please. And the invasion of Manchuria started when my friend? On August 9th, when Nagasaki was bombed. Soviets announced their entry into war on August 8th. And now please explain to me the rationale for first of all, using nuclear weapons, secondly three….and according to you how many of those who died were civilians? (take a wild guess). Both were military targets you would say?

At no time did Japan ever seek terms for surrender. There was no need, because these were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration and other documents and were publicly available. All they had to do was surrender. If they needed clarification, all they had to do was ask. The reality is that no such contact was ever recorded.

The potsdam declaration had this in it ““We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”
They didn’t like the terms of surrender. (in case you didn’t get it). Instead of harping around about “unconditional surrender” and killing innocent civilians, they could have talked and there is enough evidence (overwhelming) that these attacks could have been avoided. Here is what Edwin P. Hoyt said in “Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict (p. 420), “

And regarding reading books, here is a list that might broaden horizons.

Hiroshima -Hersey, John

Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb - Takaki, Ronald

The Atom Bomb - Roleff, Tamara L.

The Invasion of Japan; Alternative to the Bomb - Skates, John Ray

And who can forget the ruckus of the anniversary of Enola Gay and martin harwit An Exhibit Denied: Lobbying the History of Enola Gay - Martin Harwit

And this is what I said in the old thread at the end

“I wasnt talking about the act as such when stating the black&white part, but was referring to the "why" part of the act. There was a bomb dropped and people died and the japanese surrendered. Thats a fact, why was the bomb dropped on civilians, why couldnt the bomb be dropped elsewhere to demonstrate its power (whether or not it would have served the purpose is another debate altogether), should one have used the "bomb" in the first place, was the "bomb" dropped to give USSR a signal, how different was the surrender deal given to japan ultimately and how different was it from the deal they were asking from before the bomb was dropped, did the leaders even understand how powerful the bomb was and devastation it could cause, were the estimation of military casualties inaccurate...etc ....there are zillion questions like that for which one cant paint an answer in black & white. Those are up for debate”

Ahh in the words of chomsky..."Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. Going by the naive assumptions expressed by some, the propaganda seems to have worked All of us have our own views on the world and what is "rational" in one culture/nation need not be the same and many nations have "bent" the rules so that it fits their national agenda. That sort of thing is a reality so there is no point in indulging in moral one-upmanship.

How can one sit in today's time and give a justification that the "bomb" ended the war quickly and had also provided a live example for the world regarding the horrors of nuclear weapon. That’s sick logic, going by which any crap can be justified in hindsight.”

phaedrus

Oh and i totally forgot about "walter trohan" and the "chicago tribune" article. You know about it right? Or werent aware of this fact also?

Chicago Tribune History

There should be enough articles out there to be read and help broadening horizons am sure.

Vorkosigan

Oh my, those are strong words. I know people like their own belief system and its foundations, but one should be ready de-learn propaganda and re-learn truth based on the information they come across.

I agree, which is why I adopted my current position. I, like you, used to be a dupe of this Japanese fascist propaganda.

VORK:No evidence is adduced for this in the article. There was no surrender plan. The government was making plans to relocate to a giant redoubt underneath a mountain in Nagano prefecture outside of Tokyo. It had armed its citizens to fight to the death, and had sequestered thousands of aircraft to defend the home islands.

PHAEADFirst of all, when you ask for evidence, you should also provide links for your “notions?

Phaed, all of this is common knowledge ¡Vwell, OK, the tunnel system is not. It's existence has been suppressed by Japanese power-war propaganda. An account of it may be found in McCormack¡¦s The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence beginning on page 253:

• From ¡§Matsushiro Underground Imperial HeadquartersFull-scale excavation works began in November 1944 on a site in Nagano Prefecture for relocation of the throne and of the functions of command, administration and communications. An enormous series of tunnels was burrowed out in an area of some twenty kilometers circumference under the three mountains of Maizuru, Zozan, and Minagami.....labor was provided mostly by Koreans...about 7,000.

McCormack then went on to discuss the existence of thousands upon thousands of such facilities throughout Japan of which the Matsushiro system was merely the most extensive, whose existence has slowly been lost to history, partly by the postwar construction state, partly by the deliberate suppression of history by Japanese whose goal is to dupe humanistic thinkers into thinking the US was to blame for the way the war ended. There are some 3,394 registered as of the mid-1990s, and at least that number have been lost, with new ones discovered as recently as 1992 (a two kilometer masterpiece). The Department of Defense lists another 549 such sites. The facility at Matsushiro was completed by August of 1945. Bix has argued that the Emperor ended the war because he did not want to be trapped in such a complex with fanatic officers who would have killed him rather than surrender, and because he was obsessed with the safety of the Imperial regalia, which despite the many miles of tunnels, would not all fit(!).

As for the core of millions of civilians who were training with fake mines and bamboo poles, and the sequestering of aircraft (figures range from 5,000 to 12,000), that is all so well known I am sort of surprised you don't know it. John Ray Skates, whose sober work The Invasion of Japan is rather widely cited, notes "Whatever the precise numbers, beyond question the Japanese planned to use kamikazes on a massive and unprecedented scale.¡¨ (see his extremely detailed chapter on troop deployments and Japanese plans for homeland defense) Large numbers of suicide boats were also produced, along with human torpedoes.

Am sure that if you had done ‘little?research you would have come across or ‘known?about the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), released on July 1, 1946, which came to the conclusion?

Ah, innocence is so amusing....

• 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 [the date of the planned American invasion], 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.

Congratulations! You've become a dupe of both Japanese and US propaganda. The Survey wrote that because it wanted to play up its role so as to secure additional funding after the war, arguing that Strategic Air Power alone won the war against Japan. Like you the Survey has yet to present any convincing scenario for the end of the war without the A-bombs. Still no sign of the Japanese peace offer...

Just in case you want to read all those telegrams
Japanese Peace Feelers through the Soviet Union

As I said, the Japanese plan, discussed in detail in many books, was a complete fantasy based on Soviet mediation, which the Soviets had no intention of doing, and which the Japanese sought as a cease fire with troops in place. See, for example, the extensive discussion of this fantasy in Toland's The Rising Sun in the section on Peace that begins around page 900. Hirota, the Japanese special rep to Moscow and Joseph Malik are talking..

• ¡¨Hirota's ingenuous answer was close to the truth: Japan had turned to down two offers to negotiate in Sweden, and the Fjuimura channel in Berne had been abandoned as well(p. 932, emphasis mine)

In other words Toland, who is very sympathetic to the Japanese side, can't help but point out the facts: it was Japan, not the US, who kept turning down peace offers. This includes not only blatant failures like the three attempts in Sweden, but also the neglect of the Zacharias broadcasts, which carefully explained to Japan the meaning of "unconditional surrender" (the actual texts were the brainchild of Ellis Zacharias, who knew Japan well, and the novelist Ladislas Farago). Toland provides Sato's cable on the USSR on page 937:

• ...a PEACE TREATY BY NEGOTIATION IS SOMETHING WHICH CANNOT WIN THE SUPPORT OF THE SOVIET UNION. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IF OUR COUNTRY TRULY DESIRES TO TERMINATE THE WAR, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OR SOMETHING VERY CLOSE TO IT.

Sato was the Japanese man in Moscow, who understood exactly that the Soviet venture was a fantasy. This cable, by the way, was, like all other Japanese diplomatic communications, read by the Americans. BTW, this cable was sent in response to the Konoye visit you referenced in the earlier post. In other words, intelligent Japanese diplomats understood that the Konoye visit was pure fantasy.

Again, provide links/evidences, otherwise its mere fiction. Why insist on "unconditional surrender"?, to test the stupid bomb???

Phaedrus, you've adopted the position of the Japanese Army hardliners at the time. "Unconditional surrender" was rhetoric intended for domestic political consumption. The Allied offer was surrender offer was conditional and limited. Togo, Suzuki, Kase, and Sato all understood the declaration's plain language, but the Japanese military willfully misunderstood it as you do today. This is discussed in detail in numerous books, such as Weintraub's The Last Great Victory, where he writes on page 288:

• Supporting Sato's contention that Potsdam was the only avenue to peace, and that the Zacharias gloss on its terms was a crucial "divergence" from the utter surrender forced upon Germany, Minister Kase cabled Togo from Bern that he saw real guarantees offered. The "Imperial House" was unmentioned, and thus sanctioned by implication. Further, "a Japanese domain is recognized in which Japanese sovereignty holds sway." ("It seems to me" Kase added in a parenthesis, "that this proclamation provides a basis on which we can carry on our national structure which the Japanese race is now protecting with its life's blood.") As Sato did, Kase also observed that unconditional surrender applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments ¡V "They seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various other points." And he pointed out in particular the promise that the Japanese people would "be given the opportunity to lead a peaceful and productive life."

In other words, Japanese diplomats knew perfectly well what was going on and exactly what "unconditional surrender" really meant. Not a bad trick, Phaed, we're not even a third into this discussion and you've already fallen for three different propaganda campaigns. And still no sign of the Japanese surrender plan in sight.... This, needless to say, is echoed in all the sources. You can find all the diplomatic cables in Bruce Lee's Marching Orders.

And i am surprised by your rather generous slanted reading of the text provided in the site.... The “he?in the statement refers to " Donovan Donovan believed not Kase. And again I would like links for your interpretations that “Washington [k]new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes?(especially in light of the report above)

LOL. Phaed, it is basic knowledge of the war. The cable I cited above is known word for word because MAGIC intercepted it as cable H-199392. The fact that you do not know this extremely basic fact speaks volumes, Phaed.

• From here
  The Magic summaries (and the Ultra intercepts of German communications) were one of the key reasons that the Allies were able to foil the Axis plans of world domination. Only six Americans were authorized to read these intercepts. Of these six men, only one was elected. That was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he did not see, nor did he read, everything. The other policy-making recipients of Magic were: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, the chief of naval operations (the last being Adm. E. J. King) and Gen. George Marshall, the Army chief of staff. The most important of these decision makers was Gen. Marshall.
  

And please do read up on the report to which I have provided the link as to the “peace group?in japan and their efforts.

LOL. There was no peace group. There were some lower-ranking types who attempted to get organized, but the peaceniks in the Japanese government operated as a loose collection of individuals. The "peace group" is an invention of postwar propaganda. See any good book on the war, I commend you to Weintraub. BTW, I still haven't seen the peace plan you claim existed.

Why is it out of context? Your point being? And am sure if you read the report by US, you will know that it wasn’t “one?man who was working for a peaceful settlement.

Leahy was one man among many making policy, and his opinion in his opinion. Do you know how many people I could find with the opposite opinion.

Still no sign of that peace plan¡K

Uff, such twisted interpretation. Why don’t you go through the telegrams and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report for what the “US?thought?

Because, unlike you, I understand the political context of the Survey's claim. And unlike you, I actually have read all the relevant cables, since I have read both Lee and Weintraub.
Still no sign of the Japanese Peace Plan...

And some research maybe you would have discovered this?in the “Minutes of Meeting Held at the White House on Monday, 18 June 1945? this is what admiral leahy said “ADMIRAL LEAHY said that he could not agree with the opinion of may who said to him that unless we force the Japanese into unconditional surrender that we will have lost the war. He feared no menace from Japan in the reasonable future, even if we were unsuccessful in forcing unconditional surrender. What he feared was that our insistence on unconditional surrender would simply result in making the Japanese desperate and thereby result in large casualties. He did not think that such a result was necessary.?Same can be accessed at nuclearfiles.org

You do realize what this quote testifies to? First, that most people were against Leahy's position. Second, that Leahy was too clueless to understand ¡V as Japanese diplomats did ¡V that ¡§unconditional surrender¡¨ was typical US propaganda designed strictly for home front consumption. In reality the terms were conditional.

Yup just like they are desperately trying to tell the people of Iraq about their plight Again just read the telegrams and give references to your statements. What Japanese did in china and korea was despicable but the answer doesn’t lie in killing ivilians?and that too three bombs ? Tokyo didn’t reject, they didn’t like “unconditional surrender? In “The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb?, Dennis D. Wainstock said this (p 124, 132)

LOL. Not one word here address any points I made. (1) the Japanese cut off US offers (2) the Japanese and US maintained 24-7 relations in Switzerland, so no feelers necessary, they had direct communication.

As I already pointed out, Tokyo knew perfectly well that unconditional surrender was conditional, so your cite here is radically funny.

• .. By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ... Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas Emperor wanted to fight till the end???? Read the summary report

Wainstock¡¦s book is fraught with silly errors, such as getting the number a-bombs we possessed on Tinian Island wrong, so it is not surprising that he gets this wrong too. As we saw above, the unconditional surrender formula was well-understood in Tokyo by experienced hands like Kase, Sato, Togo, and even Suzuki.

Another mistake Wainstock makes, you know. The Emperor did want to fight to the end. See Bergamini's magnificent Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, the best book on the Emperor and the war. Hirohito was a bellicose, ignorant, sheltered, pompous, racist, idiot. The Hirohito of Peace is an invention of postwar Japanese propaganda.

Still no sign of the surrender plan.

Vork:Soviet entry did not make Japanese surrender inevitable. In fact, the government, after 2 A-bombs and the invasion of Manchuria, declined to surrender. The Emperor had to order it.

Phaed: Links please.

LOL. Phaed, this is basic knowledge. The bomb was dropped on the 6th, second on the 9th. Soviet invasion took place on morning of 9th. The War council was meeting when news of Nagasaki reached them. As news reached them, the Council was deadlocked on whether to change Imperial policy and end the war. Weintraub says ¡§Before the discussion could go further, news arrived of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, but even that stunning development could not break the deadlock. (p. 499)¡¨ After two more hours of debate the Council was still deadlocked. War policy would change. The war would go on. This was after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Soviet invasion. You¡¦ve swallowed the big lie.

Still no sign of the Japanese Peace plan...

And the invasion of Manchuria started when my friend? On August 9th, when Nagasaki was bombed.

On August 8, my friend, Soviet units crossed into Manchuria. The news reached Tokyo on the 9th.

Still no sign of Japanese peace plan....

And now please explain to me the rationale for first of all, using nuclear weapons,

To end the war, scare the shit out of the Soviets, annihilate valuable military targets, and test them on a city.

secondly three?

Secondly, two. It appears your stock of basic facts is not large.

and according to you how many of those who died were civilians? (take a wild guess).

Any guess would be wild, since both sides have wrapped the numbers in propaganda. Still, a good number would be 80-120K for Hiroshima.

Still no sign of the Japanese peace plan.

Both were military targets you would say?

Hiroshima, definitely. Japanese peace plan, now, please.

Vork:At no time did Japan ever seek terms for surrender. There was no need, because these were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration and other documents and were publicly available. All they had to do was surrender. If they needed clarification, all they had to do was ask. The reality is that no such contact was ever recorded.

Phaed: The potsdam declaration had this in it ?We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.?

LOL. I've already explained why you've fallen for emotive propaganda, but it is worth highlighting this: ¡§the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces.¡¨ Apparently the Japanese are capable of reading plain English, but you are not.

They didn’t like the terms of surrender. (in case you didn’t get it).

I feel sorry for them. Because they don't like the surrender, they get to kill another 50,000 Chinese in that week.

Instead of harping around about “unconditional surrender?and killing innocent civilians, they could have talked and there is enough evidence (overwhelming) that these attacks could have been avoided.

You keep saying this. Still no Japanese peace plan has been provided.

Here is what Edwin P. Hoyt said in “Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict (p. 420), ?
The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the dec 1618 ision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.

<shrug> Hoyt makes this claim, without any support. Provide the support. You keep making this claim, but I see no evidence. Meanwhile I can offer you twenty kilometers of tunnels under 3 mountains in Nagano prefecture, and 4,000 known facilities throughout Japan for a similar purpose as one small piece of evidence among thousands for fighting to the bitter end.

Sill no Japanese peace plan provided...

Hiroshima -Hersey, John
Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb - Takaki, Ronald
The Atom Bomb - Roleff, Tamara L.
The Invasion of Japan; Alternative to the Bomb - Skates, John Ray

LOL. Phaedrus, I own all these. Takaki's book is simpleminded revisionist shit, Skate's is brilliant (and sitting on my desk right now), but he can come up with no evidence for the claim that Japan would have surrendered. Still no Japanese peace plan in sight...

who can forget the ruckus of the anniversary of Enola Gay and martin harwit An Exhibit Denied: Lobbying the History of Enola Gay - Martin Harwit

A sad story. A typical example of Japanese propaganda at work, admirably dissected in numerous articles on the story. Harwit, as he himself inadvertently confesses in his book, was almost completely controlled by the Japanese during this.

• From here. The book traces Dr. Harwit's continuous concern about the opinion of Japanese officials, from whom the museum hoped to borrow artifacts for the "emotional center" of the exhibition.
  "I knew that the AFA's ideas about an exhibition would be totally unacceptable to Japan and would precipitate an international incident if followed through," he says. He wrote in a letter that "I am most seriously concerned that the changes in the exhibition demanded by the Air Force Association would, if accepted, cause an uproar in Japan when the exhibition opens."
  Worried that the Japanese might "back away from working with us" on the exhibition, Dr. Harwit felt a need in August 1994 to visit Japan "to reassure the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in person."
  He and his colleagues "all agreed that I could not go to Japan now, and that we could not afford to have the Japanese come either. But we could not put this in writing. The furor such a letter would raise would top everything. Heyman adamantly wanted to avoid a 'paper trail.' Whatever we did needed to be done verbally to leave no trace."
  Later on, he says, "Heyman and I were driven to the Japanese embassy. . . . I introduced Heyman to the ambassador and began apprising him of the situation, namely that we could not publicly confer with Hiroshima and Nagasaki representatives without risking the entire shutdown of the exhibition by Congress." Of another visit to the Japanese embassy, he says, "The important thing was not to leave a paper trail that might be leaked."

Thats a fact, why was the bomb dropped on civilians,

Hiroshima had to be destroyed, it was a major military HQ whose population was one-third soldiers and which was the major transshipment point for the defense of Kyushu, whose invasion was scheduled for the fall.

why couldnt the bomb be dropped elsewhere to demonstrate its power (whether or not it would have served the purpose is another debate altogether),

What for? Then we would have expended a bomb to no good end if they didn't surrender. I already explained earlier in the thread ¡§Planners were faced with various conflicting goals. The bomb had to help the planned invasion of Kyushu (in which case Hiroshima was ideal), in case it failed to provoke a surrender; it had to get the government's attention (in which case Hiroshima was badly located), it had to be a valid test, and it had to end the war. All these goals are not necessarily overlapping.¡¨

Still no sign of the Japanese Peace Plan¡K.

Ahh in the words of chomsky..."Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.

I agree. But unlike you, I understand that this event has been the subject of an intense propaganda campaign on both sides. Japan has been hard at work on this event, a plan that goes back to the instructions wired out to japan¡¦s diplomats on September 15, 1945, that urges them to use humanists and leftists to make the west think the bomb was an unnecessary atrocity. This was intercepted by MAGIC, of course.

Still no sign of that Japanese peace plan¡K¡K

Going by the naive assumptions expressed by some, the propaganda seems to have worked

In your case, magnificently¡K.still no Japanese peace plan offered.

All of us have our own views on the world and what is "rational" in one culture/nation need not be the same and many nations have "bent" the rules so that it fits their national agenda. That sort of thing is a reality so there is no point in indulging in moral one-upmanship.

You're right. So stop.

How can one sit in today's time and give a justification that the "bomb" ended the war quickly

By doing what you have not done, and studying the issue from every angle. I started out where you are, in that delightful combination of moral indignation that goes with complete ignorance. Then I had to teach the Bomb decision for a class on the WWII I was teaching...and being conscientious, researched everything. And then I realized that I had been, like you, the victim of a relentless propaganda campaign by the Japanese.

I hope facts can change your mind. I have plenty more, Phaedrus.

BTW, still no sign of the legendary Japanese peace plan. I know I'll never see it, because there wasn't one. The Japanese would not have ended the war without the Bombs, because only the Emperor could end the war (he was, after all, the one who ordered it). See both Bergamini and Bix Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. And the Emperor did not change his mind until after Hiroshima. See the August 7th meeting with Togo, where the Emperor, referencing Hiroshima, told Togo the war had to end and to convene a meeting the next day. The military refused to show, and the meeting was postponed until the 9th, when Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion had occurred. If the military had not "had more important things to do" the war would have ended a day early and Nagasaki would have been spared.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Your Horizons are Certainly Broad, Phaedrus. In fact, they have broadened into complete silliness. Michael Hoffman, the author of this article is a HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST who works for the notorious Institute for Historical Review, as you could have found out if you had read the link at the bottom of the article. The article is pure shit: there was no plan for peace in January as it claims; it appears that the author of the article, if it is a real one, has garbled several different peace initiatives. The Koiso government had no political basis for it; it was a rump government that had no political future. Konoye memorialized the Throne in January about the need for an end to the war, but he was rebuffed. See Toland, The Rising Sun, p 844.

A HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST! Hoffman is a complete nut

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Phaed, you have taken a severe thumping on this thread. Most people simply leave or do not bother to reply after a thumping like this. I hope you do neither.

The fact of the matter is that you simply do not know enough to swim in these waters, and what you are crucially lacking is knowledge of the Japanese side. Like you, I read all the A-bomb revisionist stuff and sucked it up in my younger, dumber days. But you will note that it is relentlessly focused on the American side. That is a deliberate propaganda move on the part of the Japanese. By taking themselves out of the equation, they make themselves into passive victims of American aggression. The reality is that again and again the Japanese nixed peace feelers started out by people on their own side, in which the Americans had shown interest. Most telling of all, they nixed the Fujimura peace feeler to Dulles because Fujimura lied and said that Dulles had approached him. In other words, the Japanese killed it because the Americans had initiated it. A clue there about what is really going on.

Vorkosigan

King's Indian

Hello, Vorkosigan.

Thanks for the tip. I myself can’t judge how well acquainted with the facts you should be, as you are obviously in advance of me, in ways that already answer lots of my questions. As to your reply:Yes, I suppose it does. My way of approaching the problem depends on the following assumption: political entities who wield power at nation-level (including military dictatorships, democratically elected governments, kings etc, and allowing for permutations) may take actions that do real good in the world. However, these actions are decided on primarily for political reasons.
I raise my approach only to demonstrate that it might not be your way of thinking about such moral aspects*; in all probability your train of thought may be less crude. I was wondering what your train of thought might be, specifically in balancing the pertinence of other ideas of moral worth; so that when you decided on the suitability of numerical value, it can be treated as a purely moral judgment, allowing you to discount the political motivations of such actions under discussion.
Because I’ve been posting for such a short time, I can’t discount the possibility of you treating it in some depth elsewhere, so I apologize for making you go over old ground. I also assume that you wouldn’t extrapolate from the case of civilian bombing to all cases that involve the well-being of distinct groups of people, or the relative well-being within groups.

Take care,
KI.

*although I’d be glad to expand upon it, if so desired.

[Added PS: I see that you are here, as I post this. I'm not running away, but I'm off to watch the rugger on the telly. I'll pop in later.]

Vorkosigan

I raise my approach only to demonstrate that it might not be your way of thinking about such moral aspects*; in all probability your train of thought may be less crude.

No, it is as crude or refined as yours. Once I understood the major moral issue was ending the war in the face of Japan's failure to end it once it had failed to achieve its goals, support for the Bomb as the means to that most urgent end flows naturally. But the key data necessary in my view is that the points of view of the Japanese decision makers, not just the US decision makers.

value, it can be treated as a purely moral judgment, allowing you to discount the political motivations of such actions under discussion.

But King's, aren't political motivations moral judgments? Should we occupy Iraq or Should we subsidize infant industries? or Should we oppose Japanese expansionism? are questions that only values can answer.

It appears to me that you've given this much more thought than I have!

Vorkosigan