The second part is speculation of the purest quality, not supported by any factual evidence
Of course, most of history is "speculation."
What was to prevent them from saying, "WE SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY!"?
It is not simply a question of whether or not Japan could have acted differently. It is a question of whether or not there were moral alternatives available to America which were less inhuman than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not disputed that Japan had been trying to effectuate a surrender for nearly a year before the bombs were dropped. The one impediment to this was the requirement that the abandon their God. This is what prevented them from saying: ""WE SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY!" But, of course, you already knew that...
This is revisionist history at its worst. No new facts or evidence are presented, only new interpretations colored by a deep bias and a pre-determined conclusion
There is a great deal of new information come to light since the original Stimson explanations, interpretations, etc. Additionally, much material that was "off-limits" for 30 years has since been incorporated into historical thinking, as well as lost diaries which have shown up, etc. There is still much material that is unavailable, so you may expect to see more accurate and refined interpretations in the coming years as new evidence is brought to light.
History is no more that "what happened." We all know what happened. We knew it then and we know it now.
Don't you wish! The purpose of history is to analyse and to teach. New facts always come to light in looking to the past, and these new facts must be incorporated into the interpretative framework which makes the study of history so fascinating. We could report that, "we bombed Hiroshima--FACT", this tells us nothing at all about the meaning of the event, nor of the lessons that may be taught or learned.
Japan was looking for a way out of the war, on terms acceptable to them. The Allied powers were not willing to accept anything less than unconditional surrender. There was an impasse. Japan continued to prepare its population for a last-ditch fight to the end, including national suicide if it came to that. The Allies continued their preparations for the final invasion of the home island. In a stroke of great fortune, the U.S. developed a new weapon which might break the impasse. We used it, and Japan surrendered unconditionally, with the result that further loss of life on both sides was prevented.
This is poorly speculated to avoid grappling with the evidence. Your head in the sand approach is perhaps comforting to you, but it is lazy and ill met.
All the "revising" that is going on now is nothing more than argumentation over the issue of whether the Allied powers should have been willing to accept a conditional surrender
Of course, this question is fundamental. You would dismiss this central concern as being irrelevant; but what could be less so? The deaths of people are not irrelevant (btw, many of the people killed in the bombings were "Americans"--some were POW's).
The weight of public opinion then and now is that the Allies should not have accepted a conditional surrender
That speculation may be true. However, the weight of scholarly opinion is definitely that there were alternatives to the bombings which were studiously avoided as part of general strategy and specific tactics...much having to do with the larger picture of Russian expansionism.
Perhaps the lay public is indeed more inclined to the Government views as promoted by Stimson which became official "gospel" for 30 years while documents, files, photos, diaries, etc. remained either "lost" or frozen.
I think it unfortunate if such a hidebound view should still prevail amongst the general public; that such a speculation might be factual makes me sorry.
The United States has never before stood to benefit so greatly from world co-operation.
Now co-operation can certainly be coerced politically...but the truest co-operation stems from a genuine goodwill and a heartfelt regard. I can tell you, Mr. Dithers, that such goodwill does not find roots in old grievances or fractured faith.
Sometimes the pig headed and the stubborn may be admired. Perhaps if Neville Chamberlain had been pigheaded, Hitler may never have terrorized humanity. In most cases, however, being hidebound and narrow simply wearies the dogs and destroys the team.
This was a war of aggression started by the Japanese, in league with other Axis powers.
It is A LOT more complicated than that; but let us not get side-tracked: we were discussing whether or not dropping the atom bombs was dictated by any sort of necessity.
In their conduct of the war, the Japanese committed numerous atrocities against Allied forces.
That is true. This is not a legitimate apologia for attacking civilians. One cannot consider an act "just" simply because they wish to relate it to the guilt of "someone". Should children one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years old pay with their lives because someone, somewhere...is guilty of something? Should our children pay with their lives for the guilt of others? Your comment is either irrelevant, or it is sickening in its implications.
The Allied position on surrender of the Axis powers was unconditional surrender, period
This was not the position. It was the posture. I think I have shown that there were alternatives to the bombings which would almost certainly have brought peace without further killings. The fact that the further killing served certain political purposes is not a moral justification, IMO.
After the bombs had made their respective statements to the Japanese and to the Russians, the American position was only too happy to find a carefully worded way of breaking the impasse of the surrender which Japan had so long attempted to mediate through the Russians. They assured the Japanese that their "Jesus" would not be prosecuted, executed, or dishonoured. When they wanted the surrender to take effect precisely THEN--after their loud statements to the Russians, and before the Russian conniving and brutality could further promote their expansionist goals--they managed to turn the trick, and thus to prevent the perfidious Russian plans from being realized. Your undeclared speculation is that such a policy is moral and that it is considered. You have not made the case for either; indeed, the evidence seems to be fully against your presumptions.
Woven into your defensive and somewhat belligerent attitude is another presumption which ought to be addressed here: You presume that decent people can never commit indecent acts.
Both of us agree that Americans (by and large) are good people with good governments and with moral leadership writ large before the world. But whereas I acknowledge that all good people (rather as individuals or as Nations), may err and stumble...you pretend that this is beyond consideration or contemplation.
In this defensive posture you both curtail the triumph of reason and compassion over ignorance and revenge, and you deny the human benefits of remorse
Given the circumstances of the war, this was a perfectly justified and reasonable position.
It is not a justified and reasonable position if it is the essential dogmatism which prevented a cessation of activities WITHOUT killing thousands of civilians. Most of the higher echelon of American military men DID NOT consider it "reasonable" or "justified"...so you are simply wrong to imply otherwise.
Japan had every opportunity to surrender under these terms at any time it wished. It chose not to, and it suffered the consequences.
That is true. But those consequences were not NECESSARY consequences. They were consequences which flowed from the actions of the US Government. The US Government could have acted differently and it seems reasonable that they could have effected an early Japanese surrender by stating that their religious icon would not be executed or dishonoured. The War Crime trials in Germany had caused the Japanese to believe that even their "God" would be profaned--perhaps executed--if exclusionary terms could not be gotten.
You have not made a good case that the bombing was considered in the light of a noble and gracious principle. Such an extraordinary act of human destruction requires much more than a flippant assertion of pragmatism. The bombing was a military action which violated fundamental principles of humanity, and which owed much to the motives of hate and revenge.
You have treated the views of people such as Einstein, General Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, Under Secretary of State Grew, Assistant Secretary of War McCloy, Lewis Strauss, Ralph Bard, Leo Szilard, Ellis Zacharias, General Spaatz, Brigadier General Clarke, Herbert Hoover, General MacArthur, etc. as American asses. But why should their integrity or beliefs be doubted? Do you know how much courage and love for truth it takes to speak out against the official "line"??
Stalin had a non aggression treaty against the Japanese. This gave the Japanese every reason to hope that they could sue for a peace through Russia which might preserve the supposed divinity of the Throne. Letting them know that Russia had actually agreed to declare war against them would have certainly given them cause to reconsider the basis of that hope. But, of course, this information (which may have removed an obstacle to surrender) was studiously kept from them.
In September of 1944, Japan began her efforts to surrender without losing the symbol of their faith and of their people:
"...on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2"
This was to be the "complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:
Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction
.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals."
From the URL:
"The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal."
Many other overtures were made for peace. In every case it was made clear that the ONLY obstacle to peace was the sanctity of the Emperor. Certainly, if the desire was to save lives, then every opportunity to do so was there for months--the only need being to allow them to keep their God...which ought never to be a negotiable item in any case...
Again, from the URL:
"The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in post-war Japan.
As General Curtis LeMay, who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it simply: " "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
I am suspicious of persons and of nations who claim to be incapable of error. This is one of the resentments held by the world against the United States: that they have never been in the wrong and thus do not have a human face. I find this very sad in a country which has done so much to advance the cause of humanity and freedom. |
