Mathias’ Madness
Wow. I have rarely seen so much disjointed logic, moral decrepidness, and historical ignorance all in one place at the same time. Michael Mathias has outdone himself.
Mathias begins his post with some recently uncovered pictures of the aftermath of Hiroshima after the nuclear bomb. The pictures are truly horrific and show the ravages of war in all of its gruesome and tragic detail. He goes on to say:
Recall that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed six months of US firebombing on Japanese cities. By August of 1945, Japan was an utterly defeated enemy, and no threat to anyone—certainly not the United States.
That’s just a flaming example of historical ignorance. In fact, Japan was arming the homeland for a U.S. invasion. U.S. commanders estimated that it would take at least 1,000,000 American casualties to take the Japanese islands and at least twice that many Japanese casualties. Also, after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, the U.S. demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. They refused. The Emperor wanted to fight on and his people believed that they could. Hence, the second bomb.
Dropping the bomb killed a great many people, but in the cruel calculations of war, it saved far more lives.
Mathias goes on…
Aerial bombing is a feature of the current campaign in Iraq. While precise estimates of civilian casualties are hard to come by, the use of such a tactic on an innocent population in a country that poses no threat to us is simply morally untenable.
Apples and oranges, Mathias… In WWII, the Allies had a policy of total war. The carpet bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, etc. intentionally killed civilians in order to break the back of the war effort in the Axis countries. In the Iraq War, America is taking great measures to avoid civilian targets. Yes, some civilians get caught in the crossfire, but America is doing all it can to avoid it. If B-52s were carpet bombing Sadr City, then maybe Mathis would have an argument here, but they aren’t and he doesn’t.
Mathias continues on a tangent:
In the meantime, there continues to be lots fulminating about Barack Obama’s alleged unwillingness to repudiate William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground with whom Obama apparently has a tangential relationship.
Now, one may find it criminal that William Ayers has learned the same lesson Ann Coulter has—namely, that controversial statements and images help sell books. As objectionable as that may be, Ayers never killed anyone. The only bombing he’s taken responsibility for, a bathroom at the Pentagon, injured not a soul.
Let me get this straight… Ayers was an active terrorist (now retired) who bombed places in America. True, he didn’t kill anyone, but that was merely a happenstance of fate. Morally, there is no difference between the willful act of terrorism that might have killed someone and the willful act of terrorism that does. Yet, Mathias brushes off a willful act of terrorism that might have killed people as meaningless.
I hope Mathias was drunk when he put up that post. Otherwise, his cavalier dismissal of terrorist bombings against the U.S. and failure to understand history might be taken as the rantings of a stereotypical America-hating Leftist… or a child.
Actually, from the examples you’ve provided, Mathias seems to drawing a parallel between Ayers and the US. After the bomb that was intended for soldiers in a crowded dance hall instead killed his partners and his girlfriend, Ayers and the Weather Underground intentionally avoided killing people. It wasn’t an accident that all the damage they caused never included another fatality. For all their misguidedness, you have to give them that much credit.
And Japan didn’t really pose that much of a threat when we dropped the A-Bomb on them. True, we would have incurred up to a million dead Americans if we had invaded, but Japan was already defeated. Eisenhower, Nimitz, and MacArthur all thought so. And the one condition that the Japanese insisted on - retaining the Emperor - we granted them upon surrender.
Posted by on May 05, 2008 at 2145 hrsSoooo.... Japan didn’t pose much of a threat, but it would have cost a million American lives to finish it? Sounds like a threat to me, unless you think that we should have just stopped and given Japan a few years to regroup.
Posted by Owen on May 05, 2008 at 2156 hrsIf you’re invading an island that has tens of millions of citizens, the large proportion of which are willing to fight to the death with old rifles, sharpened sticks, anything they can get their hands on to defend their homeland, well yeah. They would pose a threat to an invading army. But to an overwhelming collection of nations with air and sea superiority, able to wait for the inevitable collapse, not so much. It’s not just my opinion, either. It was the opinion of many key miiitary figures, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.
Posted by on May 05, 2008 at 2230 hrs"Inevitable collapse?” How so? There were some people who thought that we should have sat back and waited, but for how long? How long could America sustain the war tempo? Or would we have done what we have always done and drawn down - thus allowing Japan breathing room to regain strength and strike again.
It’s easy to sit here and second-guess history. But facts are facts. Dropping the atomic bombs killed tens of thousands of people. It also prevented the deaths of millions. Such are the cruel calculations of war.
The war ended in 1945. It didn’t have to be that way. It could have drug on for another 2 or 3 or 4 years - killing millions more and draining the treasuries of the Allies.
BTW - MacArthur also wanted to drop nukes on China during the Korean War. Do you think he was right then too?
Posted by Owen on May 05, 2008 at 2242 hrsJapan did not pose a threat at the time the bombs were dropped they still has a massive army on main land China they controlled most of indochina.
It is amazing how little history people know these days
As for Mathis I still wonder why people even bother reading the guy you know he says outlandish things just to get a reaction
I still think the best way to handle MM is to ignore him and refuse to give him the attention and spot light he craves.
Posted by on May 05, 2008 at 2330 hrsIf Japan was ‘collapsing,’ how does Mathias explain all those Japanese soldiers shooting at US soldiers all over the South Pacific?
Posted by dad29 on May 06, 2008 at 0652 hrsJapan insisted on more conditions than just keeping the emperor, including keeping terriritory it had occupied, no occupation of Japan itself, and Japan conducting any war crimes trials.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 0717 hrsAs our host points out, MM’s statement of “fact’s” is so woefully ignorant of historical accuracy that I shouldn’t even bother.
We have a habit of looking at history through the rose-colored glasses of modern sensibilities. However, in order to understand the hows and whys of the way WWII was fought, we need to consider it using the realities of the time.
Without making this a 10-page essay, keep in mind a few facts that influenced Truman’s decision to use the nukes.
1 - Japan still held large amounts of territory in maninland Asia. If you’ll examine the series of battles fought in the pacific they were the “island-hopping” campaign meant to deny Japan of sea and air bases which they used to fight the US Navy. Battles were fought for territory in Asia, but the focus was to drive up the island of the South Pacific towards Japan.
2 - Japan was committing horrific atrocities on the native populations (the Rape of Nanking being only one). In fact, they were barbaric to the point where their allies, Hitler and the boys, complained to the Japanese about their excesses. If the US had delayed in ending the war, these atrocities would have continued, probably on a more severe scale since the Japanese may not have been fighting the US to the same extend, and would continue to thighten tighten their grip on the territory they held.
3 - Since the goal of the Allies was the unconditional surrender of Japan, that would indeed require the invasion of the Japanese islands, and untold millions on both sides would have perished, so the the conclusion that dropping the bombs (as awful as it was) was the correct one. And Japanese cities were being firebombed by this time, also resulting in the death of countless civilians. Whether you die by a firestorm or a nuke, you’re still dead.
4 - The population of the US by this time wanted the war over at all costs (sound familiar?). Truman thought if he refrained from using the nukes and allowed the invasion to continue, and the US population learned of his delay in using a bomb that would end the war, he’d be impeached. Not to suggest that the used them to solely to save his political neck (Harry usually did the right thing), but he was more concerned in saving American lives. (OT- I don’t think Harry would recognise today’s cheese-eating-surrender-monkey Democrat party).
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 0742 hrsNicely played Winterland
I am politely golf clapping for you
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 0831 hrs
Chris (5) and Winterwind (8) both nailed it.
Posted by Fraley on May 06, 2008 at 1052 hrsOnly a liberal could confuse using weapons to stop aggression with using weapons to maim, kill and terrorize.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1203 hrsChris—My opinions are as sincerely felt and expressed as yours, and—on top of that—they are similar to the views that millions of people in this country and around the world also hold. The notion that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was wrong because the country posed no threat to us is not some fringe observation. I have the research to back it up at my site.
In terms of Iraq (which was part of the point I was making), there is nothing particularly radical about being against invading and occupying a country that, again, was (and is) no danger. As for decrying the continued pointless massacre of civilians taking place there, a lot of it due to our military operations, it seems somewhat strange, in my view, to not say anything about it.
Owen—I have links to contemporary facts and research to back up my opinions. Do you have anything more than invective or name-calling?
As for the rest of you—the sad truth is that dropping the bombs on Japan seemed to be more about impressing the Soviets than ending the war. Eisenhower and many others believed Japan was defeated, and were saying so at the time. Essentially, 220,000+ people who posed no threat to us were snuffed out in less than 72 hours as a demonstration project at the launch of the Cold War. It’s a horrifying legacy of our country, made all the worse by the sheer pointlessness of it all.
Posted by Michael Mathias on May 06, 2008 at 1203 hrsBig T--Get back to me when it’s your house that gets bombed and it’s your child at the morgue.
Posted by Michael Mathias on May 06, 2008 at 1209 hrsOwen—I have links to contemporary facts and research to back up my opinions.
No, you have the opinions of other people. Those are not facts. If you would like facts, see WinterWind’s post above. How much of a threat Japan was and how necessary it was to drop the bomb is a matter of opinion. It is a fact that Japan still held vast swaths of territory, refused to surrender, was preparing defenses for a homeland invasion, was killing Americans and others on a daily basis, and was determined to fight to the last man.
I do find your position interesting. Let’s say that we didn’t drop the atomic bombs and fought it out all the way to Tokyo. Even conservative estimates put the probable combined casualties at well over a million soldiers - not to mention the civilians that America would have continued killing while carpet bombing their cities. Is that a better outcome for you? Over a million vs. 220,000? Or are you suggesting that America should have just quit - allowing Japan to retain their captured territories, kill Chinese folks, and regroup?
It’s easy and glib to complain about dropping the bomb. But the reality is that while we didn’t have to drop the bomb and could have ended the war another way, dropping the bomb almost certainly killed the fewest possible people to achieve victory.
Posted by Owen on May 06, 2008 at 1249 hrsSo, Owen, am I supposed to write “they are so facts”? That seems a bit childish. I understand you disagree, but that doesn’t give you leave to mischaracterize the facts as I presented them.
And, in terms of opinions, I think I’ll stick with Eisenhower’s opinion based on his assessment of the facts rather than “Winterlands.”
Posted by Michael Mathias on May 06, 2008 at 1316 hrsExactly that. You posted Ike’s opinion. The fact that he had a contrary opinion is a fact, but his opinion is an opinion. It is not proof of anything other than someone agrees with you.
Posted by Owen on May 06, 2008 at 1326 hrsMy opinion on this lies somewhere in between the two of you. I agree with Owen that dropping the bomb was the best way to end the war, but I also agree with Michael that it was a senseless loss of life and likely among the worst acts our government has ever perpetrated.
They should have dropped the bomb on a strategic target that was less populated than the urban centers they chose. The Japanese folded when the scale of destruction capable from the bomb became known, this scale of destruction could have likely been exhibited without taking tens of thousands of lives.
We were right to use an example of our strength to convince them continuation of the war would lead to senseless loss of life. We didn’t need to use tens of thousands of dead civilians as examples one and two.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1406 hrsBy the way, MM, it’s “winterwind”, not “winterland”.
So, MM, since you refuse to accept the fact that your position is historically vapid, you instead dismiss us who actually understand the historical realities of WWII by claiming we believe something else entirely. I have made the study of WWII a hobby, and have read and watched many books and documentaries about it. My brother is a college history teacher far more versed in WWII history than most people could ever hope to be, and agrees with me on my assesment of the use of the bomb.
May I remind you that Truman himself told Stalin about “the bomb”, and Stalin said he “hoped we’d make good use of it”. My point being, during the summer of 1945 the US and the USSR were Allies, albeit marginally, and the Cold War was still in the future. Truman considered the bomb as a weapon to be used to WIN THE WAR, not as an instrument of propaganda to wave in front of the Soviets.
As far as MacArthur’s OPINION regarding the use of the bomb, need I remind you that he had a monumental ego, and actually wanted to personally lead the invasion of Japan for his own glory. (Since you’re fond of quoting the OPINIONS of Ike and MacArthur, Ike held the same OPINION of MacArthur I just mentioned - will you accept Ike’s opinion as validation of mine?).
As far as Japan not being a threat, tell that to the thousands of Allied (US, UK, Austrailian and so on) prisoners of war held by the Japanese. Unlike their comrades held as POWs by the Nazis, Japanese-held POWs for NOT protected by the geneva conventions. As with many families, I have relatives who were subjected to the horror of the Bataan Death March (google that), and those who knew them (they passed before I was old enough to understand), said that they were haunted by the experience the rest of their days. Allied POWs held by the Japanese were subject to starvation, humiliation, torture and beheading (sound familiar?), and WERE USED IN THE TESTING OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Without a doubt, most Alled POWs would have perished if the war had not been cut short by the use of the nukes.
And to the leaders of the time, NOT armchair lefty generals in 2008, the invasion of Japan was a military necessity. Truman was the C-in-C, and he had made the decision to invade Japan, all the while aware of the projected horrific costs to both American servicemen and Japanese civilians and soldiers. He of course listened to his generals and admirals( Mac, Ike, and Nimitz), but in the end made the decision himself. And I should remind you that the day he made the decision to use “Little Boy” on Hiroshima he said he slept like a baby that night.
MM, if you desire further clarification on a more personal level, go to a American Legion, VFW or any gathering of WWII vets. Get their attention, and then tell these honored gentlemen that the use of the bomb was unnecessary, and that the invasion of Japan was preferable. Even those who had fought in Europe were in the process of being transferred for re-deployment to the Pacific theater, meaning that many who had fought and won the war in Europe would now have to face death again during the invasion of Japan. Many of the men you address would have been killed or wounded during the invasion and wouldn’t be there to hear you spill your tripe. You would have to count yourself lucky if one of these noble vets didn’t punch you in the nose!
Was the use of nukes on Japan awful and horrific? Without a doubt, the cost in civilian lives was terrible. But the Japanese civilian population would have been decimated during the invasion. The Japanese leaders wanted to make the cost in lives during the invasion so terrible that the Americans would eventually back down (sounds like A-Q, doesn’t it?), allowing the Japanese to retain the remnants of their Pacific empire. The Japanese were also developing their own nukes - do you think they would have shown the restraint you advocate? It would have been no big deal for them to load a nuke of their own into a submarine and sail it it into the harbors of San Francisco, San Diego, La or Seattle and detonate it (ala kamakazie).
Owen, I apologise for the length of this response, but this kind of idiocy really steams me.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1459 hrsOh boy, another one, but this one’s easy.
3rd Way - how many nukes were dropped on Japan? That’s right - two.
After seeing the destruction of Hiroshima after the first bomb fell, the Japanese STILL didn’t surrender. How in the world can you sit there and say that they would have quit if we had dropped it elsewhere? After Hiroshima, Truman waited for the Japanese to surrender. When they did not, he made the decsion to bomb Nagasaki.
Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, fanatics in the Japanese Army began an effort to overthrow Hirohito and continue fighting. They actually suceeded in capturing the Imperial Palace (though not Hirohito himself), and tried in vain to find and destroy the recording made by Hirohito announcing Japan’s surrender. The coup then failed, and Japan surrendered.
My point is, without the use of the nukes the war would have gone on and on. The Japanese could have avoided the use of the second bomb by surrendering after the first.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1513 hrsHoping this is my last post here, but there was a very good documentary on the History Channel titled “The Last Mission” that decribes the revolt by the Japanese Army fanatics.
Watch it if you can.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1523 hrsWe can sit here and play arm chair general all day long, but at this point we are agreeing on certain facts and guessing about potential outcomes.
We will never know what would have happened if we would have dropped A-bombs on different strategic targets with less civilian density in attempt to convince them their continuation meant assured destruction. But we do know that armies typically surrender when their destruction is assured. There is nothing to tell us that the Japanese couldn’t have been convinced of their assured destruction without killing more than 200,000 of them in 72 hours.
Call me a dreamer, but I wish our leaders would have tried to limit casualties before they wielded the most deadly weapon ever known to man on two large civilian populations.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1547 hrsOK, you’re a dreamer.
Did you not read my post? The Japanese, even after seeing the destruction of Hiroshima, STILL DID NOT SURRENDER! They were perfectly willing to go ahead and allow Nagasaki to be bombed by their refusal to surrender. And remember they didn’t know we had used our only two nukes, and possibly could have nuked Tokyo or Yokohama next. The fact that the fanatics tried to prolong the war demonstrates that at least SOME were willing the destruction continue. For all they knew, we could have had 3,4,5 or more nukes, but that didn’t stop them from fighting to continue the war.
We had destroyed one of their cities with a single plane carrying a single bomb (Hiroshima civil defense actually spotted the incoming Enola Gay, and since it was alone, assumed it was a weather plane). How many more signals did they need that Truman was serious about unconditional surrender?
I don’t doubt your sincerity. Don’t for a moment think I rejoice in the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children. I too wish that the bombs hadn’t been necessary. But the Japanese were unwilling to even consider the prospect of surrender until after the bombs fell. By using the bombs, Truman ironically actually did spare many lives, both American and japanese.
The invasion of Japan would have been long, costly and terrible in lives lost. Germany actually had shared the ME262 jet fighter and ME162 Komet rocket aircraft concepts with the japanese. If the Japanese had had time to develop their own versions of these planes, the air war over Japan would have been completely different from the air war over Europe. In fact, victory by the Allies might be questionable.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1618 hrsWinterland;
I am an advocate for having used the nuclear bombs on Japan to end WWII. I have also done research on the issues at hand both in the decision to use the bombs and why the particular targets were chosen.
IF I were to take issue with any of the decisions reached, it would be to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki when we did. There is much evidence, albeit gathered after the fact, that the extent of the damage was not communicated to Tokyo in enough time for them to realize and digest it and have any sort of discussion of capitulating in the 3 days that they had.
Let’s break it down a moment:
Bomb is released at o815 local time.
The Tokyo control operator of the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation noticed that the Hiroshima station had gone off the air. He tried to re-establish his program by using another telephone line, but it too had failed. About twenty minutes later the Tokyo railroad telegraph center realized that the main line telegraph had stopped working just north of Hiroshima.
Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred and that no sizable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was generally felt at headquarters that nothing serious had taken place and that it was all a rumor.
Tokyo’s first knowledge of what had really caused the disaster came from the White House public announcement in Washington, D.C., sixteen hours after the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10)
The decision of the timing for the delivery of the second bomb was left up to Col. Tibbets as CO of the 509th Composite Group.
Although originally scheduled for the 11th it was moved forward to the 9th due to 5 days of bad weather that was supposed to begin on the 10th.
So, the Japanese government didn’t know what happened until late on the 6th. The people of Japan were largely unaware until at least the 8th. The decision to use the second bomb was left to a field commander, and rather than giving him a ‘no earlier than’ timeframe, he decided to move the bombing up 48 hours.
Perhaps if he had chosen to wait until after the weather broke, there would have been enough pressure and realization of what the US had accomplished to force the hand of the military leadership. But then again, perhaps not. Even at this late date, with rose-colored glasses and 60+ years to cogitate, there is no knowing what MIGHT have happened....
(And no, I am not blaming Col Tibbets for making his decision, the leadership should have realized that it would take a certain amount of time to make a decision to surrender unconditionally and, as stated, given a ‘not earlier than’ timeframe.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1631 hrsYou may call me a dreamer, but I am not the only one.
(sorry I couldn’t resist using the quote)
We know Japan surrendered in 72 hours after dropping 2 bombs on 2 cities. We don’t know if they would have surrendered after dropping 4 bombs on 4 less populated strategic targets over the course of a week. Maybe it wouldn’t have worked. Maybe it would have saved 180,000 lives.
I agree that dropping the bomb was likely the best solution to end the war. I just wish we would have tried to do it without wiping out entire cities.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1637 hrs3rd Way;
The biggest problem with dropping the bombs on a less, or I assume even better, unpopulated area is that to get the impact of realization of what happened, we would have had to tell the Japanese when and where to look. If I told you to watch the back 40 because I was going to bomb it at such and such a time, would you not try to stop me? Also, there was no assurance that the bombs would work. If the Japanese had been forewarned and they fizzled, what would that have done for their resolve to resist to the last man?
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1649 hrs3rd Way, on this we agree 100%
I agree that dropping the bomb was likely the best solution to end the war. I just wish we would have tried to do it without wiping out entire cities.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1655 hrselovrich -
thanks for the clarifications and corrections. Wonder what MM has to say now?
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1657 hrsI am not saying they should have dropped the bomb in the middle of the ocean and gave all the japanese binoculars. Telling them where to look would have been insane. If you are going to drop a bomb you have to drop it on something that counts.
The strategy was sound: destroy strategic targets, drop leaflets, allow them to assess the damage and tell them the rest of the country will be destroyed if they don’t surrender. I just disagree with their choice of targets.
If I am not mistaken among the discussed targets were military installations on islands, arsenals and other ports that were important strategically, but less populated with civilians.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1702 hrsI agree that dropping the bomb was likely the best solution to end the war. I just wish we would have tried to do it without wiping out entire cities.
3rd Way,
Excellent point. I agree. I don’t know that there was a way to do so, but I sure wish we could have forced their unconditional surrender without wiping out two entire cities.
Posted by Fraley on May 06, 2008 at 1704 hrsOwen, I apologise for the length of this response, but this kind of idiocy really steams me.
Carry on. You are doing beautifully.
Posted by Owen on May 06, 2008 at 1719 hrsWintergreen, I will refrain from terming your opinions “idiocy” in deference to Owen’s recent request for civility, but believe me, I am similarly steamed. Herbert Feis, who served as an assistant to Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote a book called Japan Subdued: the Atomic Bomb and the End of the War in the Pacific. On this issue, he said:
[B]y far the easiest [question] to answer, is whether it was essential to use the bomb in order to compel the Japanese to surrender on our terms within a few months. It was not ... There can hardly be a well-grounded dissent from the conclusion reached by the members of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ... “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.”
Now with all due to respect to your hobby and your brother’s job, Mr. Feis was on the scene, and in a far better position to reflect on the situation than the two of you. I’ll state it again—regardless of whether someone had said the magic words or not, Japan was defeated.
I will grant you that the situation was complex, but there ought to be a high standard for causing so many civilians, particularly children, to die such horrible deaths. That standard wasn’t even close to being met in August 1945. (And it’s not being met in Iraq today.)
Posted by Michael Mathias on May 06, 2008 at 1750 hrsMy last post on this topic. Really.
MM, I give up. You continue to plow blindly ahead following your own deluded sense of accduracy.
While I can agree with 3rd Way on some points while disagreeing on others, you, sir, are irredeemable. You keep trying to compare Iraq to WWII, when numerous posters besides myself have tried to point out the basic inaccuracies in your arguments. Your argument is like trying to solve mathematic problems while insisting that 2+2=3.
“Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not”, and you MM, are “stuck on stupid”
Good night, all. Thanks for the compliments, Owen.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 1954 hrsThanks to all for the history reminders! You’re all wasting your time on MM, he’s fully deluded.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 2004 hrsWinterland-- “Idiocy”? “Stupid”?
Thanks for a civil debate.
Posted by Michael Mathias on May 06, 2008 at 2008 hrsMM:
The post-war U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey claimed that Japan would have surrendered before the end of 1945, under the weight of sustained fire-bombing attacks against urban areas. But the assessment was predicated on the deployment of additional B-29s to the Pacific Theater, and the transfer of some air assets from Europe as well.
Military data indicates that there were only about 1,000 B-29s in the Pacific in August 1945; the Superfortress had a troubled development and deployment history, the result of a complex design and the “rush” to get the new bombers into combat. While some of those “teething” problems had been mitigated by mid-1945, there is no guarantee that the Army Air Corps could have (a) deployed the required number of additional bombers and crews; (b) secured and prepared the required bases, and (c) destroyed a sufficient number of Japanese cities to force a “conventional” surrender by late 1945. In that respect, the Bombing Survey’s predictions about a sustained campaign against Japan are hopelessly optimistic.
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 2057 hrsI very much hesitate to weigh in on this simply because I’m no genius when it comes to WWII history. However, one point about the atomic bombing of Japan that I was taught in a class somewhere back in my youth is that if we had dropped an atomic bomb on a non-civilian military target as a “demonstration”, that Japan would have taken that as a sign that we didn’t have the guts to really use it. It wasn’t the threat that we’d use it, it was the undeniable proof that we’d use it in its most devastating way that caused the Japanese to surrender. I also tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Truman. He made the decision at that time based upon information and intelligence estimates that were the best that were available at that time. To review thousands of documents 60+ years after the fact and not being under the gun to make a REAL decision but rather an academic decision, is not only unfair in my book, but also unrealistic. Neither Truman, nor any other president who is called upon to make a REAL decision, can take years to make it and only after reading and distilling thousands of pages of dreary minutiae that historians and other academics can immerse themselves in. Real presidents make real decisions based upon briefs that are the distillation of all of the information in which academics love to wallow around in order to come up with a “VOILA! I gotcha!”
Posted by on May 06, 2008 at 2147 hrsIt is a sad commentary that our nation is forever linked with being the first (and hopefully the last) to use nuclear weaponry in war. I agree with Michael that this subject is complex and I think you would agree, Owen, that both sides of this issue can find reputable supporters from that era.
There is a point that I think should be made. The world was in a state of madness. The Germans (even the Japanese though their own research was far behind) would have used nuclear weapons if they had developed them first. In war, whatever you have in your arsenal will be used to defeat the enemy. In that regard the US and its allies were no different than the Axis powers.
In many ways the horrific destruction of English, Dutch, Yugoslavic, German and Japanese cities (and others) by conventional bombing and the use of incendiarys was no different.
Do I think the US needed to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan? No. I’ve read the same sources as Michael and those by Owen, too, likely. I’ve weighed those facts and came to my own conclusion 60+ years removed from the events. To dismiss Michael’s point, though, as idiotic, is beneath comment. It would be nice to have a civil discussion on this subject.
Posted by Tim on May 07, 2008 at 1038 hrsTim:
I can see that you and MM have found reputable, erudite, responsible sources to help to form and support your opinions. That is wonderful and will hopefully lead to a civil debate on this issue. But, like all good debates, we need to set some ground rules first. How about these:
No personal attacks.
No overbroad generalizations.Use of only
contemporaneous sources, information. and opinionsThat last becomes important, because, as you said
The world was in a state of madness. The Germans (even the Japanese though their own research was far behind) would have used nuclear weapons if they had developed them first. In war, whatever you have in your arsenal will be used to defeat the enemy.
This means that Truman had to use the information and opinions from his advisors that he had available.
None of the Military or civilian leadership that MM has quoted voiced these concerns (at least not on the record that can be found to date) in public prior to the use of the bombs.
The vast majority of available intelligence, estimates, and advisor opinion pointed to the invasion of the Japanese homeland as something that would be costly in lives on both sides. The lesser of two evils had to be chosen, and Truman, who did not even know about the existence of the Manhattan Project prior to FDR’s death, made what can only be called a reasonable, although difficult decision.
In this regard, the situation in WWII and the situation leading up to the current war in Iraq are eerily similar. A President acted on incomplete information and vast support of opinion to make what seemed at the time a reasonable decision. The major difference is that in this day and age, it doesnt take 60 years tro assemble contravening evidence and for opinions, especially those that stand to gain from it politically, too change.
Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 1057 hrsElovrich: I certainly I would not agree that WWII and the Iraq debacle are “eerily similar.” The scale of WWII alone makes it completely unique and different from the current affair. And secondly, we were not attacked by Iraq ... we chose to invade on the flimsiest of evidence, most of which has been disproved. WWII was pretty clear cut.
Yours is an excellent recap of some of the events leading up to the actual dropping of the bombs. It does leave out the internal discussions that were underway. Rather than go full bore to investigate all of what you have written (and I have no reason to believe any of it false), here is a link to a page that has some interesting pieces, many from the US National Archives. There are many voices, both for and against use of the bombs.
Ultimately, the decision was Truman’s, a man who, as you wrote, had been completely in the dark about our nuclear knowledge. He did write in his diary that he had directed that a strictly military target be used. That Hiroshima had been ignored for almost the entire war leads creedence to a big oops occurring. Or, had it been decided that civilians would be the best means for communicating the horrors of nuclear war?
Who can say?
Posted by Tim on May 07, 2008 at 1354 hrshad it been decided that civilians would be the best means for communicating the horrors of nuclear war?
The quote below is from the Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945“A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.”
They were going for “shock and awe” 1940’s style. In my opinion that was a long-term tactical mistake. We always have been in, and we will always be in, a struggle to win the hearts and minds of our potential enemies and potential allies. Deciding to take nearly a quarter million lives in the span of a few days is not going to aid in the victory of those hearts and minds.
(I know I am playing arm chair general with 60 years worth of perspective, but it is important to bring these opinions to the surface and review the consequences of the decisions that were made. Especially in light of the debates about how we react to a nuclear armed Middle East.)
Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 1456 hrsMany good points have been made by the other side. In fact the rival canon to the ‘traditional’ way of viewing the dropping of the bomb have been gaining ground for nearly 40 years....
Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 1757 hrs
Following is a link to an essay from The Weekly Standard dated August 8, 2005. Please, if you want to continue a civilized debate read it as I have read, or reread all of the links the opposing view has presented.oops forgot the link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0 00/000/005/894mnyyl.asp
Posted by on May 07, 2008 at 1758 hrsThank you for that link elovrich, I couldn’t find it. I had read about the magic intel before, but could not remember what it was called.
You could argue against 2 population centers as targets, 3rd way, but the decimation of Asian occupied populations played a larger role than has been related here so far. Time was lives of non-Japanese. Note the figures in the article were an estimated 250,000 to 400,000 enemies of the Japanese were being killed per month, largely non-combatants. They were considered conservative estimates.
The problem with Mickeal Mathais and other supporters of their view is that they have formed their opinion and stopped researching. Several of the specific people Mical Methlis cited have written reversals of opinion since the magic reports became public knowledge. It is unlikely the non-professionals will change opinion, but who knows, it may be forums like this that open eyes. Anyone take any wagers that Mick will have a change of heart if he reads the link elovrich provided?
Elovrich, I liked the parallel of the two wars for entertainment value, but don’t you think you contradicted yourself with the link? I think that Truman made an excellent decision based on pretty complete information that happened to coincide with public opinion, while Bush made a poor decision based on poor information and public opinion. I think the parallel that puts Bush in a more favorable light (though not really accurate) is that a hard decision had to be made to save foreign populations and both acted the same in that regard. You would be hard pressed to find many Kurds who are not happy with the US decision to invade Iraq. (Most Sunnis disagree vehemently) While the refugees are a regrettable and negative effect of our invasion, the actual Iraqi death toll on a yearly rate has not significantly risen since the Hussein years.
Posted by on May 08, 2008 at 0927 hrsTuerqas:
The parallel that I was attempting to draw is this: We may not know all of the information that President Bush had to work with. Just as in ‘45, it is not inconceivable that there are classified bits of information that are not able to be released. It might just be that the full story of what went into the decision will not be known for 50 years, when the relevant documents are declassified.
I have made the following argument in the past and I stand by it still:
If a man who is known to have used a pistol in the past comes up to you with his hand in his coat pocket and says he has a gun, are you justified in taking all necessary action (including shooting him) to preserve either your own life or those of other innocent people?If it turns out that, in this case, a gun was not found in his pocket, does that make any decision you made, at the time, with the information you had, invalid, or immoral, or criminal?
Posted by on May 09, 2008 at 1402 hrsIf it turns out that, in this case, a gun was not found in his pocket, does that make any decision you made, at the time, with the information you had, invalid, or immoral, or criminal?
I think you should get a good defense attorney, maybe Butler.
And hope you get a sympathetic jury.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 at 1610 hrsCouldn’t resist, could you Tuerqas? You can’t stick to refuting facts, instead you resort to attacking an alleged lack of scholarship. You don’t know anything about Michael, 3rd Way or myself.
I am very open to different opinions on this matter and respect evolrich’s thoughts on the matter. In fact, if you had read closely my previous comments, you would have seen that I do not strictly agree with Michael.
I have been quite busy that last two days and will, when I get the time, look at the link evolrich provided. One of my hobbys is history and I am always excited about some new research or another way to look at an event.
Posted by Tim on May 09, 2008 at 1738 hrsElovrich, sorry I missed the point, I happen to agree with it. But apc is correct, you will probably need to have a significantly better attorney than the prosecution.
Tim, I haven’t seen your comments before (often) so I apologize for lumping you if you agree with Mathicas, before you rebutted. I stand by the statement for him, but 3rd way is also open-minded more than not. Comment back after you have read the link. It is not real new, it is just not taught, because teachers can’t condone the bomb dropping period. If you think that is a false statement, too bad you are wrong. I was a History teacher and was explicitly ordered not to talk about it. If you haven’t completely altered your view after researching this(or Mikle or 3rd way), I would like to hear why. For anyone I do not hear from… guess I was right.
Posted by on May 12, 2008 at 0732 hrsI don’t understand this need for immediate answers to comments, and this bizarre declaration of victory if a comment is not immediately forthcoming. I am not commenting here in hopes of gaining some sort of moral high ground, I simply enjoy reading what people have to write. I guess I got beyond that kind of silliness when I passed my 30s, 40s and 50s.
As I stated before, I can understand the use of the nuclear weapons by our government. The Japanese had proven to be an implacable and tenacious opponent. While blockade of the home islands was a possibility, I agree that the large numbers of Japanese soldiers still occupying huge portions of China made that option impossible to sell. Especially since the longer the war continued, the more time it gave for the Soviet Union to invade and occupy areas such as Manchuria and even northern China (in an ostensible effort to support Mao).
Truman saw the Soviets entirely differently than Roosevelt. So, for anyone to write that the Soviet threat was not on anyone’s mind when the decision to drop the bombs was made is ... well, ludicrous.
I could go on and on because this truly is a fascinating subject, but my 16-month old is clamoring for more food and eventual escape from her high chair. I will say this, Michael and 3rd Way are my friends ... Michael especially. I have known him for nearly twenty years. He is passionate in his beliefs and I largely agree with him more often than not. To back off and say certain comments were directed only at him and 3rd Way is weak. Not once did they resort to vulgarity or name calling.
I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone would order a teacher to not offer up all sides to the nuclear weapon use debate in a classroom setting. I’m not saying you are lying, Tuergas, it merely sounds incredulous to me. Especially since I remember the debate still from high school and it was quite interesting (I had been assigned the task to write a paper condemning the use of the bombs ... others had the opposite task).
I’m finished. If there is more debate on the issue I will return.
Posted by Tim on May 12, 2008 at 0825 hrsTim:
You are most likely correct. The Soviets were probably on someone’s mind at some point during the discussion and decision on whether or not to use the bomb to end WWII. However, this is a far cry from saying that it was the main driver, or even a significant contributor to the decision. No one could have foreseen exactly what the Soviets were going to do in post-wart Eastern Europe. It isn’t like they threw up the walls and borders fences in the first few months after the war. In fact, it wasn’t until 1952 that Die Grenze or the border fence, was proposed by Molotov and the Berlin Wall wasn’t begun until 1961.
So, yes, the Soviets may have been on someone’s mind, but no one could have known fully what was coming and I doubt if the Soviets figured prominently in the deicion making process on the issue at hand.
Posted by on May 12, 2008 at 0932 hrsPardon, Tim, what name calling and vulgarity are you referring to? The misspelling of names? You know Michael well? He accidentally couldn’t spell winterwind, nor you tuerqas? If you do not agree with him on this subject, then I never lumped you with him in the first place did I? So, apology withdrawn. Your insinuation of me using name calling or vulgarity to take a moral high ground where there is none is certainly a common liberal theme. Funny how you go for that moral high ground even as you say you aren’t.
I note how there is still no chance to read the link or delve deeper in to the subject, but I should thank you for not calling me a liar? Thank you.
You are mostly correct that I was weak in ‘backing off’ of others who share MM’s beliefs on this subject. Truth is, I was lazy. I should have gone back and read your comments. Then I could have pointed out to you that if you do not share his beliefs on this subject I have not lumped you with him in the first place. 3rd way had his own comment response from me in comment 43 and so I could have been more specific and mentioned that 3rd way was also not lumped in the first place in comment 47. I did not, in fact, apologize to 3rd way in the first place.
I have to assume, because you were not clear, that the ‘bizarre declaration of victory’ was referring to my ‘guess I was right’ comment. That referred specifically to those who persist with the critical beliefs put forth by experts and posted on by Michael Mathias, such as the Japanese were utterly defeated and about to surrender, etc. either after they have read the ‘magic reports’ or not bothered having read them. If it does change your view or your at least your arguments, you did not read them. (Not believing them being a change in your argument) In comment 12 MM asked for proofs and research. His ‘contemporary research’ is outdated. It was written before the ‘magic reports’ came out. They should at least modify his arguments, if not his beliefs.
I am not saying you are stupid Tim, but it seems incredulous to me that you comprehend much of what you read. (See, now you either get insulted or you read your last paragraph and get the joke)
Posted by on May 12, 2008 at 0939 hrsHi elovrich. I was not saying the Soviets were the main driver. I was using their presence as an example of one of the drivers for the decision to use the weapon ... absent a lot of time to comment otherwise. I really do have a 16-month old here and her demands come first.
Tuerqas ... My misspelling of your name was simply that. I did not intend to imply anything otherwise. I apologize for any slight. No, I have not had a chance to read any links. I type this as quickly as I typed the previous comment for reasons I elucidated above.
When I have an opportunity I will look at them. However, I should note that it will likely not sway my thoughts. As evolrich has astutely noted, there were many many complex issues to deal with. We are all involved in narrowing these myriad issues into simple stances of yea or nay regarding the dropping of the bombs. It is a fun exercise, but ultimately doomed to failure except in the realm of personal satisfaction.
btw: I did not say I disagreed with Michael’s stance. I simply said I did not agree with everything all of the time. So, apology still accepted.
Posted by Tim on May 12, 2008 at 1108 hrs Then, I restate, I am looking forward to a comment from you after you have done a little reading on the magic reports. I did not expect an immediate response, but if you are really interested in the topic as opposed to bringing it up as a comparison to the Iraq war, or as MM himself put it a pasionate belief, as opposed to a reasoned belief, the link elovrich provided and the reports themselves are a must read.
I would be surprised if it did not have an impact on your beliefs, while I must say I would be surprised if it had a public impact on MM. I think it is telling that he indicts Ann Coulter in his article for using “controversial statements and images to help sell books”, while he is showing nuclear holocaust pictures and comparing them to the limited surgical air strikes the US is currently using in Iraq. He may well be a fine person, but he is guilty of the same thing in the same article save he is not selling a book per se. Now what is his opinion of Ann Coulter?
Posted by on May 12, 2008 at 1154 hrs
Ol' Army
