seanie

Vorkosigan

I've already said in a previous thread that I thought the droppping of the A-bombs was justifiable. And that I regarded Dresden as a war crime.

Why is that?

Because I can see how the benefits of Hiroshima and Nagasaki outweigh the costs. It stopped the war in it's tracks. Had it continued many more would have died. Americans and Japanese.

Probably.

Some sort of armistice or surrender may have been possible. We'll never know for sure. But it certainly didn't seem likely at the time time it. And it doesn't seem particularly likely even with hindsight.

And there may have been other motivations in the decision such as a show of strength to the USSR. But I think issues such as that are peripheral.

Essentially I think the prospect of huge casualties had the war continued means that dropping the A-bombs, if not necessarily right, was certainly the lesser of two evils. Not dropping the bombs would have been moreimmoral.

Dresden on the other hand would appear to have very little benefits to outweigh the costs. It's difficult to see any effect it had on shortening the war and the only rational explanation for it, apart from perhaps a desire to slaughter as many German civillians as possible, would appear to be as an example to the rapidly advancing Red Army.

"You may have a fearsome army, but look what the RAF can do."

So no. I'm not questioning the dropping of the A-bombs.

I'm questioning macaskil's over simplistic dilemma. Largely because he bracketed Iraq in with Hiroshima.

Notice my choice of words;

I think Harry S Truman had a very difficult but essentiallly straightforward choice.

But sometimes the situation is not so straightforward. The costs and benefits may be far more uncertain and speculative. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

Very few people are actually pacifists. Hell even Bertrand Russell made an exception when it came to fighting Hitler. Faced with a clear choice of killing 100,000 to save 1,000,000, most would accept it. Faced with an unclear choice and people start getting edgy. Understandably.

So no echidna, there is nothing in my post, at all, in any way shape or form, that ultimately implies a pacifist stance. A pacifist is not willing to kill so considerations such as "how many actual deaths am I willing to inflict to save how many possible deaths" isn't really within their terms of reference.

But such considerations are exactly what the rest of us have to weigh up.

The only people who don't are pacifists and psychotics.

the_cave

Finally posting again in response--

Thanks to all who've responded. I'd like most of all to thank Vorkosigan, for providing some hard data, which I had not previously seen (most of my sources were second-hand histories.)

It seems to me that, based on all the evidence, and the discussion here, the bombing campaign was in principle justified. Indeed, I'd say that up to a certain point (a certain date, perhaps, or else a certain scale of destruction) it was actually justified as it was carried out.

But I think it can be argued that certain bombings--like Cologne, Hamburg, and Dresden, as some have already noted--were egregious. There's certainly nothing forcing us to admit that if the bombing was justified in principle, then each incident of bombing was justified.

Otherwise, I think Vork's evaluation is generally correct, based on the best available data. However:

The rapes were perpetrated, incidentally, by males who were by and large believing theists of one flavor or another.

This is ad hominem. EVERYONE IN THE WAR was a believing theist of one flavor or another, except for the Soviets (some of whom are also I believe documented as having committed what we would term "war crimes" after the armistice. But if you have any information refuting or casting doubt on my claims, I'd be very interested in hearing it.) Otherwise, you're correct in noting that it's irrelevant to this discussion. So, finally:

Were they justified?
Yes, given the choices available to allied planners. In hindsight, of course, some changes would have been made. More concentration on electric targets, for example. As I said.

Again, I agree in principle, but can only agree in part. Yes, they were justified in principle, and often in practice. However, some of the "changes" I would have been made would have made quite a difference: no carpet-bombings, for example, save perhaps for a few limited targets.

But this brings us to another question, for further debate: let's say that a military commander forsees two options:

1) He can carpet-bomb a city and reduce its military production, thus killing many enemy civilians, but saving many of his troops, or

2) He can bomb a city lightly, harming its production, but not enough to avoid many more of his troops dying before victory than would have died if he had carpet-bombed (and probably many more enemy troops will also die.)

For the purposes of simplicity, let's say that the number of additional lives that would be lost--enemy civilians bombed vs. total troops on both sides in battle--is equal. Let's also say that both countries have a draft.

Is one option more moral than another? Military strategy would obviously dictate the first. However, it results in more civilian deaths, rather than military deaths. Does it matter? Should we always battle for the lives of our countrymen first, regardless of the loss of life of enemy civilians? Does it make a difference if there's a draft? Remember, those who wouldn't be drafted (women, children, the invalid, the elderly) would most likely be killed in a carpet-bombing raid.

Gregg

I'm glad this thread resurfaced. I had found some WW2 casualty figures that I thought might add something to the discussion:

Soviet Union* 8,668,000 16,900,000 25,568,000
China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000
Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000
Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000
Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000

First figure is combatant deaths, second figure is civilian deaths, third figure is total deaths.

Note that Germany and Japan--the aggressor nations--have VASTLY fewer civilian casualties than the states they invaded. I was surprised that Japan had "only" 300,000 civilian casualties (not to minimize that figure).

I think Dresden will always be a black mark against the Allies. I have never really understood the necessity of it, but I must admit I haven't really studied it very closely. On the other hand, I think you can argue the morality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki until the cows come home and not reach a satisfactory conclusion. Perhaps we should have done a demonstration of the bomb's power first? Maybe, but I don't think this was a situation where many people really thought through the implications for the future in using this new weapon.

What can't be questioned is that the bombings prevented the necessity of an invasion, which almost certainly would have pushed that civilian casualty rate up above a million--and probably would have cost a few hundred thousand (at least) American lives as well. Considering the millions upon millions of lives the Japanese took in their reach for empire, they got off pretty easy.

Gregg

echidna

I’d like to ask the opposers of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would you also have opposed the hypothetical dropping of atomic weapons on Germany in the early or middle stages of the war ?

Vorkosigan

Thanks to all who've responded. I'd like most of all to thank Vorkosigan, for providing some hard data, which I had not previously seen (most of my sources were second-hand histories.)

The rapes were perpetrated, incidentally, by males who were by and large believing theists of one flavor or another.

This is ad hominem. EVERYONE IN THE WAR was a believing theist of one flavor or another, except for the Soviets

The soviet union was never majority atheist. And the army was composed largely of peasants who were certainly not atheists. In any case, you linked the rapes to secularism, or so I read. If I have misread, I apologize.

But this brings us to another question, for further debate: let's say that a military commander forsees two options:

1) He can carpet-bomb a city and reduce its military production, thus killing many enemy civilians, but saving many of his troops, or

2) He can bomb a city lightly, harming its production, but not enough to avoid many more of his troops dying before victory than would have died if he had carpet-bombed (and probably many more enemy troops will also die.)

Ha! Aren't we facing this now? I've been thinking back to this thread quite a bit since we started bombing Iraq. I can find no justification for this war, and certainly not for bombing Iraq.

Vorkosigan

phaedrus

Umm...the old nuking-japan-was-good argument ...propaganda does seem to work........check this old thread ....whch veered towards the hiroshima in the middle...

From the thread
---------

coming to the ending the war quickly part, do we really have to get into this or havent you even heard of myth busting done by various people? There would be zillion articles out there. *exaggeration cap on* Why didnt US bomb military targets? You dont happen to believe in Truman's hallucination that hiroshima and nagasaki were military targets and the bomb will stop the "japanese savages" ?? Or was it the first shot in the cold war?. So was Hiroshima necessary?

Read this as well Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand

I am sure there are other articles arguing to the contrary as well, but the point in question is the naive assumption about "ending the war quickly"

--------------

King's Indian

Hello, Vorkosigan.

I have found the posts on this thread very useful (yours not least), and I would be grateful if you could expand your reply to one of Idiopathy’s point.
When contemplating the idea of targeting a section of the population (“killing” doesn’t seem necessary: grievously wounding may have much the same effect, if not more) in order to anticipate greater loss of life, is there any way we can judge the value of the lives of different groups of people? If it turns out that numerical value is the only reliable one, what criteria can we use to discount others? To think in such terms as combatant/non-combatant seems too rhetorical (sorry, Idiopathy): after all, in political terms the question might be more sharply-divided into our troops/their non-combatants.
The political considerations must be very difficult to take into account. I’m not thinking about the most simplistic one: that one may reduce casualties tout court by utter capitulation. This wouldn’t answer, as casualties will certainly not abate under occupation.
I’m thinking more about the Japanese government’s refusal to surrender, even after Nagasaki. Taking that as a fact, I wonder if you could fill me in whether there were any political battles taking place within USG, as to the appropriate response. Particularly since political differences of opinion can be nursed as easily as grievances, and may have been held in reserve from previous times.
I’m afraid I wouldn’t know enough to balance the claims I’d read, which is why I’m imposing on you.

Take care,
KI.

PS: “[…] Probably I am morally deficient.” I know you were using irony, but I would sicken at the idea if anyone thought this post took that stand.

Gurdur

Tiddley om pom pom.

Two points:

1) You don't mean hara kiri (a method of execution for criminals with no honour), you mean seppuku, and it's not especially a military ritual, it's a samurai ritual, which isn't the same thing at all --- anyone recognised as having honour could commit seppuku, men or women.

2) Allied perceptions of Japan were highly flavoured by racism --- racism that heavily contributed to Japan's militerization in the first place.
Care to discuss Billy Hughes' contribution to the convention following WW 1 where he specifically took a stance against a Japanese motion recognising racial equality ?
Billy Hughes was of course Prime Minister of a land you know well ....

Care to discuss how racism in the West overall played its part in convincing the Japanese theirbest chance was militarism ?

I'll bet there are those who bitterly regretted sending off the American warships to forcibly open Japanese markets back in the end of the 19th century.

The sounds you hear are of chickens coming home to roost in new and surprising ways; something to bear in mind with present events.

phaedrus

What happened?

Vorkosigan

Hi phaedrus;

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.

The site says:

• 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.

1. 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.

Not known to the general public until after the war, Japan had begun to put out feelers about surrender by May of 1945. On May 12, 1945, William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services (which later became the CIA) reported to President Truman that Shinichi Kase, Japan’s minister to Switzerland, wished "to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities."

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.....

• He believed one of the few provisions the Japanese would "insist upon would be the retention of the Emperor." A similar report reached Truman from Masutaro Inoue, a Japanese official in Portugal.

...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?

• In mid-June Admiral William D. Leahy concluded that "a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America’s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."

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.

• Meanwhile, the U.S. learned through intercepted diplomatic cables (the U.S. had broken Japanese codes early in the war) that the emperor of Japan wished to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as his personal representative to "ask the Soviet Government to take part in mediation to end the present war and to transmit the complete Japanese case in this respect." In President Truman’s handwritten journal, only released in 1979, he noted in July of 1945 that Stalin had reported "a telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

This is your basic out and out lie. 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.

But let's go on. More lies follow:

• The United States, acting on the advice of conservative political advisers--not on the advice of its military leaders--dropped the first atomic bomb without responding to any of the Japanese peace feelers.

A lie. 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.

• Then, three days later, and after the Soviet entry in the war had made immediate Japanese surrender inevitable, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

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.

• The first bomb was dropped after Japan had already begun the process of seeking the terms of surrender.

Another lie. 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 second bomb was dropped when it was clear no U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands was needed.

In light of the fact that the US was deeply involved in invasion planning at the time, this is another lie.

You shouldn't rely on Aperovitz, he is one of a group of writers who have basically sucked up Japanese right-wing propaganda and regurgitated it.

Start with: Weintraub The Last Great Victory. A day-day account of the end of the war.

Vorkosigan