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.
They stated "even without the atomic bombing attacks," Tim, because they were making the point that the "surrender" was already a clear reality before the bombs were dropped. It was going to come to pass shortly whether the bombs were dropped or not. "Even without the atomic..."
"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."
Keep in mind what the Assistant Secretary of State said to Stimson way back on June 17, 1945: "there were no more cities to bomb, no more carriers to sink or battleships to shell; we had difficulty finding targets."
You cannot saw sawdust, Tim. You assert a ludicrous sense of puzzlement as though it were meaningful; predictably, you are unable to provide a source, a link, or a quote to justify your airy pronouncements.
It seems that no matter what sources I quote you gainsay them by personal fiat. It is just as though you were writing a work of fiction, where the author (naturally) has absolute authority to manipulate whatever "facts" he wishes to create.
You continue to pretend the validity of premises which are false. You pretend that the delay in surrender of up to 19 weeks is due to a lack of civilians having been killed. You then use this invented premise to make up a related meaning behind the report: that the conclusion of surrender directly assumes the necessary killing of huge numbers of civilians for up to 19 weeks.
The Report does say anything about their calculations of the surrender being associated with civilian deaths; but for some odd reason it seems very important for you to insist that surrender may not occur without an equal or greater number of civilians being killed as those who were killed by the atom bombs which was exploded for the sole purpose of killing them.
The Report doesn't indicate that the impediment to surrender was a paucity of death, destruction, pain and suffering. But it doesn't need to, does it, Tim. Just so long as you are able to tell us what they were too incompetent to tell us. All the quotes, from those participants and leaders involved on both sides, stating that it was the terms of the surrender which had sabotaged the process--all these can be ignored as well, Tim. And we can ignore the fact that all the major players urged surrender terms which allowed Japan to keep their God, but the wording was changed leaving the fanatics of the Japanese army no choice but to reject the terms.
Of course, when you weave a tangled web of silliness, you just have to expect that sooner or later you will be asked to justify your flippancy and disdain for facts.
So who did you think they were going to "heavy" bomb for the next 5 months, Tim? I can predict you will answer the two civilian cities that had been reserved for the big bombs--Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But then why wouldn't the Japanese surrender after that? Why do you insist on heavy bombing of civilians for 5 more months? Why do you insist the Japanese would not surrender after having had H and N firebombed?
Anyway, I'll give you one day for each of them, and let the fire do the work This still leaves virtually all of 5 months for "heavy" bombing of civilians. What to do?
How about the railroads? Fine; I will give you one day of "heavy" bombing of the railroads (keep in mind that this will not contribute to the actual surrender, as you have insisted that the surrender is dependent on as many or more civilians being killed as were killed in the radiation bombing). The rails were left virtually untouched, as they were of no value to the Japanese in terms of warfare at that point. They had no resistance to mount, and no supplies to move.
(There could have been a great deal of internal resistance if an invasion had occurred as most of Japan is mountains; but the Army hope for an American Invasion in order to give them leverage over the surrender terms was a vain hope, and not to be)
OK. I will give you one day to bomb the rails: "heavy" bomb them, if you will. This uses up 3 days out of your 5 months of "heavy" civilian bombing. Now you will need to get really creative.
"there were no more cities to bomb, no more carriers to sink or battleships to shell; we had difficulty finding targets."
How foolish he would feel if he had known that the SBR was to come along and figure out 5 months worth of targets for "heavy" civilian bombing. But the mercy of providence may have spared him, as the Report was considerate enough not to say anything about the civilian bombing targets (which are the only thing that ever gets anyone to surrender). Generally, when they equal or exceed the deaths caused by actual methods, do the theoretical struggles envisioned in advanced planning counsels equate to a situation where surrender becomes acceptable.
Tell me, Tim, about the 5 months of "heavy" bombing which the bombs mercifully prevented! This heavy bombing, the dearth of which had militated against surrender (not the "terms" of surrender which had been accepted by the Emperor and the Supreme Counsel excluding the army)--this heavy bombing of which the SBR foresaw as bringing about surrender within 19 weeks--although they failed to mention it, being to busy with more important details.
The inhabitants of Japan lived on four main islands, mostly along the coastal shore. Their cities (66 of them) had been burned to ashes in large part. So which particular civilian populations were to bear the focus and the brunt of "heavy" bombing over the next 5 months? When you decided to clarify what the SBR did not say...which cities were you thinking of that would require 5 months of heavy bombing? I hope you have not forgotten?
Well, no mater. Take a moment now to return to your original research, and be kind enough to supply some links which list their targets--not the 66 already hit; but the ones that the Assistant Secretary of State was too dumb to apprehend when he said: "there were no more cities to bomb, no more carriers to sink or battleships to shell; we had difficulty finding targets."
I confess to you: even though I have read declassified CIA links, and all sorts of other war intelligence information, I have never yet found this information which apparently has come down to you through some mysterious channel, and which was the privy basis for your interpretation of the other SBR...the Unwritten one.
It would certainly be comforting to know that the 66 cities that were turned to ashes provided some proof that the Americans could still exert a bit of air pressure. Not that that matters. You really have to use atomic bombs on civilians to make countries surrender. That has always been the case for many thousands of years The surrender had nothing to do with the fact that the continued destruction of cities with civilians showed that there was no chance that Americans would invade until everyone, soldier or not, was dead The message was clear...and it was very loud.
Some of the 66 ASH cities still had civilians living in them, Tim. Perhaps it was these which informed your immediate recognition of the hidden "heavy" bombing message in the SBR. The SBR stated their conclusive opinions that, probably before 11 weeks, and definitely not later than 19 weeks, and without Russia, invasion, or the radiation bombs...Japan WOULD surrender. But they probably had not interviewed Eisenhower or Admiral Leahy, so probably considered only live civilians as the impediment to surrender..as you so astutely and wisely ascertained, Tim.
Of course, it only makes sense, Tim; and I see your point: why else would a country ever surrender without first counting the civilian deaths to make sure they were as great or greater than an apologia for the dropping of the atom bombs? You count dead civilians until the magic total of "enough" is reached. This then fulfils the necessary criteria for "surrender." I am sure this is what would have happened.
This only makes sense, and I am beginning to grasp (what came to you with such casual ease), the unwritten, and heretofore unnoted, pith and substance of the SBR.
The rest of history was thankfully spared the burden of just what these targets of "heavy" civilian bombing were to be for 5 excruciating months until sufficient had been killed to exceed the numbers killed in the atom blasts. But now that much time has passed, there is a certain curiosity to learn from you just what was to occupy the "heavy" bombing for 5 months?
I know you cannot link web sites or divulge those types of secrets. I know the information is not "open" knowledge, and I blame you not at all for your reticence to quote the wealth of detail which your between the lines reading of this exhaustive and detailed report gleaned from the guarded pens of the SBR.
I do not ask you to divulge confidences...but I must tell you of the rumour: it is said that the detailed "heavy" incendiary bombing plan was to bomb the harbour and blow up the water.
There had been a lot of support for dropping the A-bomb on an uninhabited area; but that quickly fell to the astute objection that it would be embarrassing if it turned out to be a dud; as well, it was vociferously objected that it killed no people. Certainly good points, both; so the bombs were dropped in the epicentre of the civilian population, toute de suite.
Of course one wonders bout all those old quotes from the Generals, Admirals, Strategists and leaders of those terrible years: these people who dreamed, lived, fought and died the war. One wonders why they all seemed to believe that Japan was entirely beaten and only needed diplomacy regarding the surrender terms to end the nightmare? And then there was that loser who said: "there are no targets to bomb!" What did he know? I give him zero credit compared to you, Tim: zero, zero, zero.
That is why I accept your habit of making all your factual points without reference to evidence. It seems only appropriate and fair that you should be allowed to vitiate the credibility and dignity of such as General Einsenhower, Admiral Leahy, McCloy, etc.--by substituting your own private opinions based on what you feel is best.
Five months of heavy civilian bombing? Cripes! No wonder they decided to 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.
Sorry. They DID surrender. Again, you contradict the words of all the great leaders who were in the war and who counselled the president that a surrender would work IF their Emperor God was spared; but otherwise--NO. How many times, by how many people did it have to be said? How many times does it have to be repeated for the benefit of someone flippantly tossing it to the side??
here 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
Precisely! Until as early as June 17. the Assistant Secretary of War declares: "there were no more cities to bomb, no more carriers to sink or battleships to shell; we had difficulty finding targets." <ggg>
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
You are saying that 5 times as many children would have starved than all those killed by the atom bombs, if the Japanese had surrendered in the scenario described by the SBR. One would think such a thing would be significant enough to mention, LOL! THis is such a ludicrous statement that I am just going to laugh. Why would you make up such a ridiculous figure?! As I said, chances are there would have been almost no starvation--even in the worse case scenario of an America sabotaging the goal of a surrender agreement by insisting that their Emperor God must be profaned. Anyhow, send me the authoritative source where you picked up the 5:1 figure. evaluated it, and decided to add it to our discussion. I would like to have a look at it to. Was it one of our esteemed historians?
My point is just that there is a good chance that they had that effect.
Wrong. They took lives. They took a lot of lives.
"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."
What on earth are you talking about?? What basis would you have to judge the moral balance which ultimately stems from the lives or deaths of people? Your question is ridiculous. If you are a God, you would not need to discuss the question. If you are not a God, you have no business posing it.
You have no idea what saviours and saints might spring from the ripples of Hitler's life. You have no clue what demons and monsters might have sprang from the ripples of someone he killed.
You think that one stop in space/time for a quick look and a selfish interpretation gives you the right to draw a sword on innocent people? I am sure I could justify killing every single human being who ever lived, or conversely--saving every human who ever lived, depending where in the future space/time I paused, and depending on how I interpreted things that day.
There are enough things to worry about here, Tim, without getting all excited about imposing your morality on the past or the future. When you have learned why it is wrong to walk from house to house killing children, then you will probably be ready to start building your time machine. |
