Nowhere does the report even hint that the projections of surrender were based on extrapolating a progressive and cumulative series of civilian deaths.
It is dealing with the realities of the time. The reality of 1944 and 1945 is increasing bombing and destruction in Japan. There is no logical reason to exclude this reality from its projections. In fact it would be so basic to its projections that it is not surprising that it is not explicity stated. However it is indeed hinted at by "Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion." What would need to be explicitly stated is any deviation from what was happening in 44 and 45. They did for example explicity state "even without the atomic bombing attacks" because the attacks did actually happen and if you are going to project something different then the reality of the war it must be made explicit if the readers of the report are going to understand what you are talking about. Similarly if they would project a complete stop on bombing, or on bombing of cities the report would only be properly understood if they explicitly stated this.
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.
So if allied forces had been bombing Japan almost continually for over a year and the report doesn't explicitly say anything about the bombing continuing of ceasing we would assume that the authors of the report where talking about a hypothetical situation where it would stop before a surrender? That doesn't make any sense.
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...
Many of the fanatics new in 1943 that the war was lost but they prefered to go down fighting rather then surrender. To them any surrender was a humiliation and a disgrace. They might have agreed to a cease fire or even a peace treaty but not a surrender. I suppose that you could argue that a peace treaty in 43 or 44 that left Japan undefeated but saved lives on both sides, but the political realities of the time would not have allowed for it. Also it would leave the risk of a rearmed Japan trying something again in a few years (although with a more vigiliant and better armed post war America, such an attempt would have been even stupider then going to war with the US the first time so it might reasonably be considered unlikely).
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.
There was no resistance left (outside of resistance against any invasion, or AA fire against our bombers) because we where cutting off all supplies, and bombing military and industrial targets left and right (with of course many civilian deaths as the military was sometimes near civilians and the industry was located in cities which we were destroying). If stopped doing these things then there would have been some resistance. Effective resistance? No, atleast not unless we stopped doing these things for years but there would have been some resistance. But the resistance I was talking about was not that of attacks on US forces but rather resistance to surrendering. If you bomb then wait, then bomb then wait, you probably have to kill more people to compel a surrender then if you keep the pressure on.
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...
The allies hated the Japanese. We did not incinerate them becasue we were trying to save their lives.
It would be more like burning one child out of a thousand then all of the children and to continue the analogy it might have been 5 out of the thousand that starved had surrender not been compelled. Also it would be more of an attack against you (but one I knew would also kill that one child) rather then an attack on the child.
I agree that the atomic bombs where not dropped on Japan for the purpose of saving Japanese lives. My point is just that there is a good chance that they had that effect.
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 agree that murder is wrong but my sense of it being an absolute wrong could fight with utlitarian ideas of morality and those ideas also are things that I atleast consider in extreme cases. For example the idea of going back in time to kill Hitler or Stalin when they where innocent children (assuming that was your only oportunity) because later they killing millions. Obviously killing them is wrong if they had not done anything seriously wrong yet but if I was sure that I would not create something as bad or worse by changing history there would be at least a degree where it would feel wrong to not kill them.
Of course the situation with the question about dropping the bomb was not the same. The bombs killed many thousands not 1 person. Also the amount of people who may have been saved would not be as high as the number of Hitler's or Stalin's victims in fact its possible that it was even lower then the amount of people killed by the bombs but it was not low. The "killing Hitler or Stalin" question provides a better question to get to the ideas I am talking about because it is simpler and has an obvious enormous disparity in consequences. It also might be a less emotional question for you. I won't press you if you don't want to answer it, I merely ask for you to either answer it or not address the last two paragraphs of this post at all.
Tim |
