"That assesment would logically be made based on the conditions that held in 1945 except for the dropping of the bomb."
Nowhere does the report even hint that the projections of surrender were based on extrapolating a progressive and cumulative series of civilian deaths. The Report simply states that:
"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, 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."
You can assume that the only thing these hundreds of investigators were interested in was the bombing of civilians, but simply forgot to set it down in their report and conclusions. You can assume whatever you like. But it was wrong and devious of you to interpolate your own words and assumptions into a Report that says nothing about bombing any additional targets.
Certainly, it makes no allusion to the killing of civilians as being information they relied upon in their extrapolations and conclusions.
"There where some who opposed the surrender even after the atom bombs where dropped and Russia had joined the war against them."
That is correct. The Emperor, Hirohito, was preparing to exercise his executive perogative. His position was dangerous because the army fanatics (Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda) had control of the country. There was always the risk of assassination and coups against those who counselled surrender and peace. Hirohito (as well as Togo, Suzuki, and Yonai) was desperately trying to find an opportunity to surrender. His only way was to use the grapevine to convince the States to allow a surrender with "honour," or to surrender above the heads of the army, and risk an uprising and new leadership while he was put in safekeeping.
Japan knew as early as 1943 that the war was inevitably lost. But the fanatics would never agree to surrender if their divine emperor (the Monarch and Symbol of a people) was to be humiliated, disgraced, and perhaps worse...
The fanatics knew the war had long been lost, even as did Hirohito, et al. But they wanted to retain the symbol of what was Holy to them. In other words, like Christian and Muslim martyrs of the past--they were willing to die rather than have the Emperor denigrated to POW status.
Even though the fanatics lost, they still wished to kill Americans; not, (at that level) for any passionate reason of enmity, but for the purpose of convincing the US to allow them to surrender with honor. Such an offer from the US would have allowed Hirohito an excess of army support to safeguard him from the few extremists who still would be in opposition to surrender.
There are always the truly mad, but a change in US policy would have isolated them from the vanguard of sense and reason; and it surely would have pulled their claws.
The lack of an invasion was already weakening these fanatics. Without an invasion there were simply no Americans to kill, and therefore no leverage for a surrender with "honour."
"If we had simply left Japan alone (no a-bombs, no invasion, no conventional strategic bombing, and perhaps no blockade) then there would probably have not been enough defectors from the hard-liners to make a surrender happen"
What you do not realize is that every sensible person had long been convinced. The fanatics, however, were not sensible. They did not hold a great value on human life when measured against the sacred honor of their Emperor.
These people were not being pressured by firebombing. If they could have gotten an American invasion, so that they could conduct guerilla warfare--then they would have let every man woman and child die provided they could negotiate a surrender on terms respecting the Emperor's divinity.
"...they would still have been in a hopeless position but its quite possible that the pause could have kept resistance going long enough to mean that we would have had to kill more Japanese in order to compel surrender."
Again: there was no resistance. The only "resistance" left (so long as there was no invasion to make Americans vulnerable) was the resistance to surrendering their divine throne as a POW. As long as the Americans stayed away from walking on Japanese soil, the hopes and the power of the fanatics would dwindle.
Nobody suggested they stop fighting. The air supremacy was total, the naval supremacy was total. Japan was being strangled. If there could be found any more military targets, then those could be hit. But where was thetre left to bomb?
In the meantime: allow a little face saving for the fanatics (there is no other way unless you kill them); and get the surrender "official."
Truman refused to do this because of public hatred of the Japanese; so he tried to get Congress to be the "scapegoat." But no-one wanted to be accused of being more lenient with the Japanese than we were with the Germans. And so it went...
"They where training civilians to try and take out at least on American soldier before they where killed."
They were training civilians to defend their hearth and home in an American invasion which they hoped and prayed would come. Only the killing of Americans would give them leverage to negotiate a surrender with "honour." It was no illusion of winning any war, not even among the fanatics; but nor was it the despair of a scorched earth policy. They still had hope: not in winning the war...but in the honour of the Emperor.
There was no overwhelming evidence that an actual surrender was imminent
All the evidence disagrees with you. Japan had been trying DESPERATELY to surrender. The only thing preventing them were 3 army officers and the support they could muster amongst their troops. An offer of surrender with an intact and unmolested Monarch would have stripped these fanatics of the support they had, and would have made it safe for Hirohito to exercise his perogative as supreme commander.
If we just stopped attacking the forces that did not want to surrender would be strengthened.
That may seem logical to you, but it is incorrect.
That would have meant the worst case scenario envisioned by the authors of the report was 5 more months of heavy bombing and near total blockade.
The report implies nothing about "heavy" bombing. The report talks about the blockade and about "pressure" in the air. I am sure they chose their words with care.
They were making the case that the atomic bombs could have been avoided. If you read the report you will see that their intent was obviously not to make the case that it could have been avoided by doing ten times as much damage over 5 months! The tone makes it clear that the avoidance would have been a less repugnant option. Your attraction to "heavy bombing" is not from the Report. If they had wanted to say that firebombing or civilian bombings were what they relied on to bring about surrender, then they could have said so. But there whole point in stressing that the bombs could have been avoided was to affirm thatbv the DEATHS could have been avoided. If you do not se this it is because you do not wish to.
"I'm not sure that it said without Russia"
"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, 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."
"I see that you don't want to directly answer the question even as a hypothetical"
I did directly answer the question several times. I don't particularly appreciate lending a serious tone to something which is offered as a mockery.
One last time: Your family is at war with my family. We hate each other, but you have surrounded me and have cut off all our supplies. You tell me to surrender or you will beginning burning my children, one at a time. Over the next couple of months you carry out your threat, and you kill most of my children.
I have run out of food so I surrender. Later you tell the papers that you burned my children because you were trying to avoid their possible death by starvation. You tell the papers that you really really loved my kids; you were just trying to prevent unnecessary deaths.
If you want to claim all those civilians were killed to save American lives, then claim it, Tim. It is utter crap, but claim it. But don't pretend that you killed the babies to save them from starvation. You took away their choice. Alive they could say: "We are hungry; we will surrender." Dead, they have lost their choice. Don't tell me how many Japanese lives "might" have been saved, if...
The allies hated the Japanese. We did not incinerate them becasue we were trying to save their lives.
The allies hated the Japanese, and vice versa. Nobody pasted these children, like snakeskins on a sidewalk, because they had any feelings of afffection , decency, or consideration.
Do not come to me, Tim, and try to pretend a serious discussion over murder. It violates every sense of justice which defines our humanity. I am not going to debate with you the case as to whether or not your might gives you the right to dispose of the innocent by playing at God.
I answered your question several times, in spite that it was so insulting.
What? did you think we were going to explore a principle which makes it right to kill innocent people? We were going to turn back 100,000 years of evolution, and just decide that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not a human heritage...but the prerogative of the swordsman only?
Your question was nonsensical, mocking, and dumb; And I am dumb for having answered it for the third time... |
