July 16, 1945

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-09 07:24:57

*Change is inevitable.
Too many lives lost, too much suffering for the sake of stasis (which, societally speaking, ultimately proves itself to be an illusion).

Japan was an interesting case, an essentially feudal mindset with advanced (imported) industrial capacity. They had the tools of modernity but not having developed them themselves they hadn't moved into the modern age socially or culturally.

No doubt the new ways were strange and threatening to those rooted in a more traditional mindset. A modern Japanese military was bad enough, at least the core ideals of the culture were carried within it. Unconditional surrender? No, I can understand their willingness to fight on.

One could even argue that the demand for unconditional surrender, both in Europe and the Pacific, prolonged the war and cost far more lives than a couple nukes. Plenty of bloody hands to go around.

Palomar · 2005-08-09 07:44:34

One could even argue that the demand for unconditional surrender, both in Europe and the Pacific, prolonged the war and cost far more lives than a couple nukes.

*What sort(s) of conditions of surrender should have been negotiated for, then? Just curious.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-09 07:58:54

*What sort(s) of conditions of surrender should have been negotiated for, then? Just curious.

I was just being Devil's advocate more than anything, I probably would have pushed for unconditional surrender as well.

That said, and excusing that we actually did allow Japan to surrender conditionally by keeping the Emperor in place, there are any number of approaches that could have been taken. With Japan it could have involved withdrawal of all forces threatening US, British and Australian assets with a pledge from the allies to do the same for example. Many in the Japanese leadership wouldn't go for it, but who can say. Let them have China and the big bones of contention are cut down.

In the case of Germany it's simpler, Hitler never wanted war with England and had the allies been willing to sacrifice France for the time being in order to let Germany and Russia pound each other with full might things may have gone smoother from the perspective of the Western Allies.

Again, not my preferred approach but if one argues that the Japanese leadership is responsible for the deaths at Nagasaki by not surrendering after Hiroshima one can just as well argue that the American leadership is responsible for every Allied death from some arbitrary point onward by not allowing terms of surrender to be negotiated.

I suppose the real truth is that it takes two to have a war just as it it takes two to have a will imposed. Some Japanese decided more war was preferable to being imposed upon.

But then, I'd not only put the Enola Gay on public display unapologetically if it were my call, I'd gladly allow the bombing to be commemorated on stamps as well. It was a war, we won with honor, nothing to be ashamed of.

Palomar · 2005-08-09 08:10:57

Again, not my preferred approach but if one argues that the Japanese leadership is responsible for the deaths at Nagasaki by not surrendering after Hiroshima one can just as well argue that the American leadership is responsible for every Allied death from some arbitrary point onward by not allowing terms of surrender to be negotiated.

*But the A-bombs were in a class all of their own. They were literally hell on Earth unleashed. Not being argumentative, just reiterating...yes, I do blame the Japanese leadership for Nagasaki. It was easy for the ones with the "fight on to the bitter end" mentality to be that way, sitting there "safely" in Tokyo and all those miles from Hiroshima; and of course the media was primitive compared to what it is today. How much suffering must the people endure? The initial blast, the shockwave, the inferno of flames, the radiation poisoning, the "black rain," the corpse-choked rivers...

At that point the Japanese leadership should have called for negotiations.

Nagasaki could have been avoided. Should have been avoided.

Their culture was going to change one way or another.

Enough is enough. Hiroshima was enough. Should have been enough.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-09 08:18:56

If your entire culture and way of life were threatened with destruction at the hands of utterly foreign invaders how much force would be required for you to give up and accept the new masters?

Those who answer along the lines of God himself could not make me kneel may have a profound insight into the mindset not only of the Japanese leadership of the time but the Jihadi wackos we face today.

Palomar · 2005-08-09 08:33:49

If your entire culture and way of life were threatened with destruction at the hands of utterly foreign invaders how much force would be required for you to give up and accept the new masters?

:? The Japanese themselves were imperialist. They also adopted some Westernisms (clothing, automobiles). So they were, in part, willfully bringing about a change to their own culture.

How were we the foreign invaders? They invaded Pearl Harbor prior to Hiroshima, of course.

Those who answer along the lines of God himself could not make me kneel may have a profound insight into the mindset not only of the Japanese leadership of the time but the Jihadi wackos we face.

I agree with this, so I'm a bit confused as to the why of this interjection. That is the mentality which I don't understand and which brought about Nagasaki. I would have surrendered after Hiroshima.

Oh...and prior to the Hiroshima mission, the guys who were slated to be part of that mission/on board the Enola Gay were to be shown a movie of the Trinity detonation. The projector jammed and the film was ruined, so they were unable to see it. I wonder what their reactions would have been if the projector hadn't jammed. Guess we'll never know.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-09 08:46:22

The Japanese themselves were imperialist. They also adopted some Westernisms (clothing, automobiles). So they were, in part, willfully bringing about a change to their own culture.

Willfully adopting something and being forced to are very different things.

How were we the foreign invaders? They invaded Pearl Harbor prior to Hiroshima, of course.

We were preparing to conquer the Japanese main islands. Not sayign they didn't have it coming, but from their perspective we most certainly would be invaders.

Just as from their perspective the US Pacific fleet was the backbone of the blockade against Japan, thus giving them a strategic reason for eliminating that fleet by attackign Pearl Harbor.

I wonder what their reactions would have been if the projector hadn't jammed. Guess we'll never know.

Honestly my guess is that it would have been a mixture of "oh good lord, what are we doing" and "Kick ass!"

Palomar · 2005-08-09 09:06:57

*Just want to reiterate: The Japanese leadership, IMO, should have surrendered after Hiroshima. I'm genuinely surprised they did not, but again they were removed from the event and the instant media access we have today of course didn't exist back then. Nagasaki could have and should have been avoided, and that event is entirely the fault of Japan's leaders.

Pres. Truman gave warning and requested surrender on July 26. It was ignored. Hiroshima. Pres. Truman gave issued another warning and another request for surrender. Ignored again. Nagasaki.

We gave warning and requested surrender beforehand. The Japanese certainly didn't pay us this courtesy prior to Pearl Harbor.

If the projected 1,000,000 lives (casualties) were ultimately spared (if that's true and not spin or hype), then I suppose it was unavoidable.

Probably I'll always wonder how and why things can get so drastic so quickly...and will humans ever learn? Damn that Japanese leadership for bringing this onto their people. Regardless of all the factors combined, I'll always feel sorry for the people who were caught up in H and N. I have compassion on them which their own leaders didn't have. But isn't that the way it works? Hitler was willing to sacrifice his people and said he'd abandon them if they failed him; Stalin slaughtered, tortured, imprisoned thousands of his fellow Russians. Humans are truly a sad bunch.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-09 09:28:27

*Just want to reiterate: The Japanese leadership, IMO, should have surrendered after Hiroshima. I'm genuinely surprised they did not, but again they were removed from the event and the instant media access we have today of course didn't exist back then. Nagasaki could have and should have been avoided, and that event is entirely the fault of Japan's leaders.

I understand what you're saying. It's not my intent to be confrontational either, merely to say that I understand why they wouldn't surrender.

Perhaps they also interpreted the American eagerness to get a quick surrender as us covering our lack of capacity to keep bombing on that scale. We only had two nukes, what if they'd still refused to surrender after Nagasaki? Interesting to ponder.

Palomar · 2005-08-09 09:50:03

*Just want to reiterate: The Japanese leadership, IMO, should have surrendered after Hiroshima. I'm genuinely surprised they did not, but again they were removed from the event and the instant media access we have today of course didn't exist back then. Nagasaki could have and should have been avoided, and that event is entirely the fault of Japan's leaders.
I understand what you're saying. It's not my intent to be confrontational either, merely to say that I understand why they wouldn't surrender.
Perhaps they also interpreted the American eagerness to get a quick surrender as us covering our lack of capacity to keep bombing on that scale. We only had two nukes, what if they'd still refused to surrender after Nagasaki? Interesting to ponder.

*No problem, Cobra. I have this tendency to interpret things very literally which sometimes leads to communication gaps. Hard to describe, but your playing at devil's advocate did throw me a bit.

As for your last paragraph, it was mentioned on the Discovery Channel program that Mr. Suzuki (IIRC) misunderstood Pres. Truman's message. Or it was perhaps a matter of translation. His interpretation of the message was that Truman feared defeat and so was "bluffing." Thus, the silent treatment (a Japanese word was mentioned at that point in the program, which has a couple of nuances of meaning...but basically silence of disdain/contempt). Yeah, I thought about that (what if they'd continued to refuse surrender after Nagaski?). The U.S. gov't had already spent $2 billion on the Manhattan Project by that point, which included the cost of the Hiroshima bombing. I suppose it included the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki as well. Did the U.S. have the wherewithal to build more A-bombs? 2 billion was a lot of money in 1945 (still is, of course).

And would the U.S. have had the resolve to go beyond Nagasaki with additional A-bomb missions?

I'm glad we never found out.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-08-09 09:50:12

-- Some experts estimate that, if D-Day had been delayed for only another 6-12 months, the Nazis would probably have had weapons in their hands which could have turned the tide of the war in their favour.

Perhaps and perhaps not. This point is controversial.

But anyway, the Soviets still would have been darn close to Berlin by the Summer of 1945 and without D-Day a few A-bombs would have killed maybe one or two hundred thousand Russian soldiers but even that would not have changed the final result.

No D-Day? Joe Stalin would have rolled all the way to the English Channel, a Nazi A-bomb or not.

Google Operation Bagration, which started on the Russian front within days of June 6, 1944. Wikipedia has a decent article.

= = =

My idea for a "what if" alt-history novel? Moved to the new fiction section.

BWhite · 2005-08-09 09:54:44

If your entire culture and way of life were threatened with destruction at the hands of utterly foreign invaders how much force would be required for you to give up and accept the new masters?
Those who answer along the lines of God himself could not make me kneel may have a profound insight into the mindset not only of the Japanese leadership of the time but the Jihadi wackos we face today.

Indeed!

In Iraq we are fighting against testosterone more than we are fighting against Islamo-fascism.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-09 20:31:53

Bill:-

Perhaps and perhaps not. This point is controversial.
But anyway, the Soviets still would have been darn close to Berlin by the Summer of 1945 and
without D-Day a few A-bombs would have killed maybe one or two hundred thousand Russian
soldiers but even that would not have changed the final result.
No D-Day? Joe Stalin would have rolled all the way to the English Channel, a Nazi A-bomb or
not.
Google Operation Bagration, which started on the Russian front within days of June 6, 1944.
Wikipedia has a decent article.

I agree absolutely that this whole game of "what if" is wreathed in controversy - that's what makes it such a fascinating pastime over dinner and a few glasses of good wine!
-- In this case, the scenario postulated by "the experts" delays D-Day by 6-12 months, probably an unlikely eventuality, since Stalin had been screaming for a second front for a long time at that stage. The 'fun' part is wondering whether, and when, Hitler would have released his divisions in the west and whether their introduction into the fray on the eastern front would have substantially slowed the Soviet advance. If D-Day had been delayed for only a few months (say, 4 months), the prospects of crossing the notoriously treacherous English Channel in October most likely would have meant its postponement until at least May the next year. As it was, finding an opening in the weather in June '44 proved to be very difficult, and that was supposed to be summer! (I've seen enough English 'summers' to know whereof I speak, too! )

-- If ... more 'ifs' (! ) .. Hitler had felt safe enough in the west, or sufficiently desperate in the east, by September/October '44, to transfer his 59 divisions in France to the Russian front, how much time might that have bought for the Nazis?
-- Naturally, we can never know the answers to any of these kinds of questions. But the disconcerting fact remains that Nazi Germany was close to getting hold of some scary hardware as the war drew to a close. And even small changes in the fortunes of that war could conceivably have given them just enough time to do so, although I admit it's all very unlikely given the ferocity of the Soviet attacks at the time.
-- However, a German A-Bomb in December '44, and if they'd had enough of them of course, may yet have turned back the red hordes in my opinion. Stalin may have urged his troops onward between the mushroom clouds but I think the sheer 'shock and horror' of nuclear explosions would have caused disarray in the Soviet ranks - especially as hundreds of thousands of burns and radiation-sickness victims began pouring back into Russia from the front lines. The Soviets were a tough battle-hardened people but you can't pit human flesh against nuclear fire -
morale would have cracked I'm sure.

-- Incidentally, I followed the discussion, with interest, between Cindy and CC about the Japanese failure to capitulate after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. But I'm not sure there actually is any correct interpretation of those events because it may not be possible to see the situation from the perspective of each side after such a long interval. Maybe there is some truth in the suggestion that Japan didn't believe America had a second bomb (?). Who knows? :?
-- It was a horrifying part of history and I'm just glad it we were able to bring hostilities to a close without having to stage a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands. I think that would have made D-day and its immediate aftermath look like a church social.

BWhite · 2005-08-10 09:03:56

Operation Bagration was launched June 22, 1944 with 1,700,000 Russians attacking 800,000 German defenders. Army Group Centre was destroyed, utterly. In July, 1944 the Red Army drove the Germans entirely out of the Ukraine with several hundred thousand german casulaties and prisoners.

During that time period, about 20% of Germany's total military forces were in the West. To delay D-Day might have freed up a fraction of those numbers. Not enough to stop the Soviet onslaught.

Postpone D-Day and Joe Stalin ends up in Belgium, Holland and France.

Germany did have two million soldiers and civilians committed to air defense against the RAF and US Army Air Corp. 10,000 AA guns including many thousand 88 mm which were superb anti-tank weapons.

Stop D-Day AND stop the air campaign and perhaps the Soviets gets stopped when the Western forces along with a million people commtted to air defense move eastwards and set up a defensive line. Stop the bombing and the Luftwaffe turns east as well.

= = =

A dozen A-bombs and Stalin might have been deterred. Two A-bombs and the Soviets would have come on even harder, in my opinion. In 1945, the USA did not have a dozen A-bombs.

= = =

I think Truman made the right choice at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the lesser of evil options. Many more people would have died had we attempted landings on the Japanese home islands.

BWhite · 2005-08-10 09:07:29

-- Incidentally, I followed the discussion, with interest, between Cindy and CC about the Japanese failure to capitulate after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. But I'm not sure there actually is any correct interpretation of those events because it may not be possible to see the situation from the perspective of each side after such a long interval. Maybe there is some truth in the suggestion that Japan didn't believe America had a second bomb (?). Who knows?

My recollection is that the emperor and the military (Tojo) disagreed about surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped the emperor win the argument.

When the emperor told the citizens to surrender and not resist the occupation that made our job significantly easier. Had the emperor said "Fight to the last man, woman and child" and then been killed by US bombs we might be fighting a Japanese insurgency today. At least into the 1950s.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-10 09:20:57

When the emperor told the citizens to surrender and not resist the occupation that made our job significantly easier. Had the emperor said "Fight to the last man, woman and child" and then been killed by US bombs we might be fighting a Japanese insurgency today. At least into the 1950s.

Without question.

Stop D-Day AND stop the air campaign and perhaps the Soviets gets stopped when the Western forces along with a million people commtted to air defense move eastwards and set up a defensive line. Stop the bombing and the Luftwaffe turns east as well.

Pretty much agree with this as well. Simply postponing D-day probably wouldn't have given Germany enough breathing room to halt to Soviets. But an armistice with the Western Allies very likely would have.

A dozen A-bombs and Stalin might have been deterred. Two A-bombs and the Soviets would have come on even harder, in my opinion. In 1945, the USA did not have a dozen A-bombs.
/quote]
Very difficult to say. Stalin probably would not have been deterred by a couple nukes, but the Red Army is quite another matter. They weren't quite the monolithic, loyal communist force bent on the destruction of the Hitlerite invader that they were made out to be. It was quite common for advancing Soviet forces to have another line behind them not for support but to shoot them should they try to flee. It would not have taken all that much to crack the rank and file. Particularly if their allies (namely us) withdrew support.

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-09 07:24:57

Re: July 16, 1945

#27 2005-08-09 07:44:34

Re: July 16, 1945

#28 2005-08-09 07:58:54

Re: July 16, 1945

#29 2005-08-09 08:10:57

Re: July 16, 1945

#30 2005-08-09 08:18:56

Re: July 16, 1945

#31 2005-08-09 08:33:49

Re: July 16, 1945

#32 2005-08-09 08:46:22

Re: July 16, 1945

#33 2005-08-09 09:06:57

Re: July 16, 1945

#34 2005-08-09 09:28:27

Re: July 16, 1945

#35 2005-08-09 09:50:03

Re: July 16, 1945

#36 2005-08-09 09:50:12

Re: July 16, 1945

#37 2005-08-09 09:54:44

Re: July 16, 1945

#38 2005-08-09 20:31:53

Re: July 16, 1945

#39 2005-08-10 09:03:56

Re: July 16, 1945

#40 2005-08-10 09:07:29

Re: July 16, 1945

#41 2005-08-10 09:20:57

Re: July 16, 1945

#42 2005-08-10 09:26:38

Re: July 16, 1945

#43 2005-08-10 09:32:05

Re: July 16, 1945

#44 2005-08-10 10:11:00

Re: July 16, 1945

#45 2005-08-11 21:00:28

Re: July 16, 1945

#46 2005-08-11 21:13:12

Re: July 16, 1945

#47 2005-08-12 05:30:07

Re: July 16, 1945

#48 2005-08-12 05:54:33

Re: July 16, 1945

#49 2005-08-12 06:03:28

Re: July 16, 1945

#50 2005-08-12 06:23:01

Re: July 16, 1945

Board footer