If you're interested in the context of this type of "strategic" bombing, and how it played into the U.S. decision to use the atomic bombs in WWII, listen to the "Logical Insanity" episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast: http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-l...
I wish this were at the top for this thread. Dan Carlin's summaries and analyses of the decision making at that time are wonderfully thought-provoking. The concept of logical insanity in particular is one i see consistently reproduced in every part of modern society.
To add to the horror, realize that the vast majority of Americans will adamantly defend these bombings as well as the atomic bombings, using verbatim talking points taught to them as children in public schools.
Note: The following is written from the perspective of an individual who accepts that states are necessary, and that war is justifiable. This isn't something I personally believe, but something that the vast majority of people do - not just Americans.
I don't remember any talking points being taught to me as a child, but I guess that would be the case with any good brainwashing. I am familiar with the justifications for targeting Japanese civilians for conventional and nuclear bombing though, something along the lines of Japan being prepared for total war - down to child combatants with sharpened sticks. In war you have two options for ending hostilities, complete annihilation or political resolution (surrender, cease fire, etc). If Japan went into total war mode, and they made it clear that they would if necessary, then they remove the political resolution option. So with that in mind, it is not a stretch to say that firebombing and nuking hundreds of thousands saved millions of Japanese lives.
Consider the fact that this firebombing occurred 1945-03-09, and the Japanese were still wanting to fight for another five months, until the second atomic bomb drop on 1945-08-09. The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city, they had no idea how many atomic bombs existed.
> The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city
Utterly wrong. This has been shown many times that the A-bomb was not the decisive part. It was the upcoming involvement of Russians on the Japanese front. Please stop spreading explanations for 5-years olds.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is widely accepted that both the bomb and the soviet invasion had equivalent weight in their surrender, with some historians saying the soviet declaration of war was more important.
To add on that, at the time of the surrender, the long term effect of the bomb was not known to the japanese and as such the nuclear bombing wasn't the worst city bombing they suffered, neither in terms of infrastructure damage or loss of life.
The "5 year old" comment probably has something to do with it. HN doesn't tend to downvote people into the gray just because they are saying something that other people disagree with, unless the comment is also not particularly civil.
I say things that many people disagree with all the time on HN, but pretty much the only times that I am downvoted into the gray are when I am not civil. For instance, the only comment of mine that has been grayed in this discussion is this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169426 That comment is little more than a personal attack, and was therefore downvoted.
> this is widely accepted that both the bomb and the soviet invasion had equivalent weight in their surrender
I seem to recall that from the archived discussions between the officials at power at the time, the Russian invasion wa the key topic at hand to capitulate before any soviet forces landed.
So Japan's surrender, six days later, was just a coincidence? Maybe if you shared one of the "many" demonstrations that the "A-bomb was not the decisive part", we could weigh that against the strange timing of the whole thing.
> So Japan's surrender, six days later, was just a coincidence?
Japan had been already utterly destroyed by that time, the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the most deadly bombings at that time. Let me remind that most large cities had been already razed to the ground. You are completely missing out the context of the time and giving way too much importance to the nukes.
> ... the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the most deadly bombings at that time.
That is my point exactly. Those cities were selected for the purpose of a technological demonstration, not body count. I thought I made it clear in mentioning the time span between firebombing and surrender that Japan was not super concerned about body count, it was more about maintaining sovereignty following eventual defeat. The US demonstrated a technology that would allow it to annihilate Japan without having to shoot every child holding a stick. That would make total war, and the hope of war weariness in your enemy, completely pointless.
My understanding has always been that the bombings were a "tech demo," but unlike your claim they were not designed to force Japan to surrender (which was already assumed).
Rather, they demonstrated not only this new capability of the United States, but perhaps more importantly they demonstrated the country's willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties in an ostentatious display of the capability.
Ultimately, the bombings were intended to frighten the entire world in submission, providing leverage that was used to construct the United States empire following the war.
They were indeeded a "tech demo", not intended to scare Japan which was already on the edge of capitulation, but to the Russians to show them that the US would have the upper hand for the post-war negotiations.
Perhaps you can provide the authoritative reference that substantiates your view. From what I have read, some historians believe that the soviet invasion was partly responsible for the timing of the surrender, but it's contribution is difficult to know. These events happened in short order. Unless you have a source from the Imperial Army or government that documents the decision making, it's all speculation. Also, I find it interesting that the soviet military waited for the second bomb before invading. Were they being opportunistic?
Also incorrect. The Atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion of Japan held China where both devestating. But as D.M Giangreco documents in "Hell to Pay", at the time, the "Peace Party" in the cabinet, most notably Kido, felt that the Atomic bomb was exactly what they needed to end the war. Kido and others in the peace party literally described it as "a gift from heaven".
It occurs to me that by asserting that the American nuclear bombardment was not justifiable because the Japanese were not sufficiently terrified of it but were sufficiently terrified of a Russian invasion, we are saying something quite extreme about the nature of an invading Russian army.
Does anybody know what narrative is taught in Russian schools to Russian children?
Japan had been allied to Germany. The Wehrmacht had been one of the most effective fighting forces the world has ever known. The Imperial Japanese Army had been formed on the Prussian model back in the 19th century.
The German Wehrmacht had just been defeated by the Soviet Army three months earlier.
Also, the Japanese army had already tried and failed to defeat the Soviet army in 1939. In fact, that's how Zhukov got his first Hero of the Soviet Union award. That was in 1939, before the massive Soviet arms buildup, before the dissipation of Japanese strength in the Pacific.
A Japanese general would have to be delusional to think that he could hold out against the Soviets in 1945.
> The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city, they had no idea how many atomic bombs existed.
I agree with most of your post, but not this one.
The other major factor was that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Until that point, the Soviets had led Japan to believe it would be possible to negotiate a peace through them.
I admit that I don't know a great deal about the Soviet angle, but it doesn't seem to logically fit. By that I mean: why would the Japanese be more afraid of a Soviet invasion than an American invasion? I know that Japanese soldiers had been trained to believe that Americans would retreat in the face of Japanese force, and that the Japanese had a pretty negative experience in dealing with the Soviet military. But I'd think that by the end of the Pacific war the Japanese would have been keenly aware of the fact that the Americans were not running away - they preparing to invade the homeland.
The only way I can logically fit the Soviet angle in is if Japan thought that they might be able to divide the Allies with a Soviet peace treaty. It would have been a real long shot, but not uncharacteristic of them at that time.
The notion that Japan refused peace until it was nuked is incorrect. Japan had tried to begin peace talks in January, but they were ignored by the Allies[1]
Incorrect. Wikipedia has a decent overview of what really occurred with the Japanese overtures:
Satō advised Tōgō that in reality, "unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto" was all that Japan could expect. Moreover, in response to Molotov's requests for specific proposals, Satō suggested that Tōgō's messages were not "clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war," thus questioning whether Tōgō's initiative was supported by the key elements of Japan's power structure.[47]
On July 17, Tōgō responded:
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.[48]
In reply, Satō clarified:
It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the imperial family].[49]
On July 21, speaking in the name of the cabinet, Tōgō repeated:
With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. The Allies read this in realtime. Japan was not ready to accept any sort of unconditional surrender. More the point, America and Europe had just finished a brutal war in Europe. The point of view then was that the war occurred because Germany had no truly been defeated in World War I. All where concerned with not seeing another world war.
You start by claiming my comment was incorrect, but I don't see a refutation that the Allies were unwilling to negotiate peace with Japan in your response. In fact, you seem to confirm it.
Maybe your confusion stems from something you said:
> Japan was not ready to accept any sort of unconditional surrender.
There is only one sort of unconditional surrender, that is why it's called unconditional. The Allies, the US in particular, were not interested in negotiating peace with Japan. They were not willing to settle for anything less than Japan's total submission to them, which is why they ignored Japan's overtures to negotiating peace in January 1945. Not, as you naively seem to be believe, because they were "concerned with not seeing another world war", but because the US realised it had the might to do so, and wanted to assert itself as a global military power. Negotiating with Japan would have implied that the US had doubts about their own capacity to wage war. You seem to be aware of this, as you point out in your other comment that was linked to earlier:
> Japan counted on the vast distance between San Fransisco and Tokyo to protect them from the horrors that they had unleashed on China, the Philippians and countless other peoples in the Southeastern Pacific. They were wrong.
They were indeed wrong, but the US had to prove it to them and to the rest of the world, which is what they did by firebombing Tokyo and nuking H. and N.
Japan was not interested in any outcome that didn't preserve their empire in China. that was non-negotiable to them.
In addition, as noted above, this only was the proposal from the peace party.
My belief in the United States "being concerned about another war in 20 years" is well founded and documented. Please see the personal memoirs of Marshall for example.
Sadly yes, the United States did need to prove to them, something that very basic laws of economics should have revealed - they had no shot whatsoever, at any point, in winning a war against the United States if total mobilization came into play.
> Japan was not interested in any outcome that didn't preserve their empire in China. that was non-negotiable to them.
That is not true according to the article by Walter Trohan I quoted above[1]. From that article:
> 4. [Japanese] relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea and Formosa, as well as all territory seized during the war.
This peace proposal was virtually identical to the one Japan ended up accepting. The only difference was that it did not offer the surrender of the person of the emperor.
The veracity of this proposal has never been questioned or denied:
> The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.
(Harry Elmer Barnes, "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe", National Review, 10 May 1958)
So there is no reason to doubt it.
As for your belief that the US was concerned about another war in 20 years, I am aware that this commonplace ideological piece of rhetoric is very well documented. But let's take it a face value. Let's say we believe that the real reason the US chose to firebomb Tokyo and burn to death around 100,000 people, mostly children, elderly and caretakers was to save lives by preventing another war in the next 20 years. The very least you could say is that it didn't work very well: the US was fighting another war in Korea 5 years later, Cuba 16 years later and Vietnam 20 years later. And yet the rhetoric keeps coming back, as justification for every single one of these events. So if fighting wars doesn't actually seem to prevent any killings, but always warrants more wars, why not change tactics? Why not try a different approach, for example a game of rock-paper-scissors between world leaders? The answer is that wars do indeed work for the purpose they are fought for. But this purpose is not preventing other wars, as ideology would have you believe, but instead to establish the might of the state in the general competition of states for power and domination. And populations are simply the means by which states achieve this purpose: their own population as productive force for the war machine and canon fodder; and the enemy's population as evidence of the state's power, in the form of number of casualties. The more you kill, the better.
Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and been willing to negotiate, they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. So it was an evil slaughter.
> ... they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion.
There is no way to know that without knowing the conditions of surrender that Japan had in mind. I have a feeling that the conditions would have been as well reasoned as an island nation attacking an industrial powerhouse with the natural resources of an entire continent :)
> So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate
That is debatable, but not by you, as you seem to be missing the point. Negotiating with irrational actors is risky - burning them to death, or until they say uncle, is pretty safe.
> ... and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.
I have to admit, watching a frustrated care troll twist does put a smile on my face - but it gets old fast. The topic at hand is logical justification, so appeals to emotion are comically out of place here.
An appeal to emotion is not out of place here. This is not a simple matter of "logical justification", there's no logical axiomatic framework that deals well with ethics. So appeal to purely "logical" justification is out of place here, sadly, not comically though.
I'll make this simple. The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. However, the US never even tried to negotiate, nor did they try to communicate to the Japanese that they would be willing to allow the Emperor to remain nominally in power. They could have used that to end the war far sooner.
So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? I'm sure you'll say that that wouldn't have worked, but how would you know? The lack of any attempt shows that the US wasn't interested in ending the war: they wanted revenge, and therefore the bombings were not justified.
> The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war.
That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage.
> So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means?
If we are going to play the what if game, why stop at the firebombs? What if Japan didn't attack? What if the US didn't apply economic pressure? What if Japan didn't stomp all over Asia? The what if game is pretty boring.
> That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation, and when that consequence became clear, intelligent people finally realized how wrong it is.
But your argument is wrong anyhow. Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not. If you are, you try all avenues, including negotiation. If you don't try negotiation, you aren't trying to end the war, you're trying to prolong it. The US leadership knew they couldn't lose at that point, so they weren't trying to end it.
> The what if game is pretty boring.
It sure is when you lose right away, due to the US never trying to negotiate. Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?
And It doesn't matter that we don't know what would have happened if the US had attempted negotiations with Japan. It only matters that they never did.
> That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation ...
That is the kind of thinking that ends wars. Compare the results of this method in WWII to the results of modern warfare, where force is much more restrained.
> Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not.
It isn't as simple as that, you aren't just trying to end the war - you are trying to end the war while maximizing your return on blood and treasure. If your goal is to completely dismantle the enemy's war machine, and head off another war with them in a few years, then you are most likely going to want an unconditional surrender. So if your enemy announces that isn't in the cards, then why bother with negotiation?
> Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?
Because irrational actors can't be understood, you can't negotiate without understanding.
> It only matters that they never did.
I don't try to negotiate with salesmen when they announce a hard price, the resulting lack of negotiation is on them - not me.
Count me in as one of those who defend these bombings, and the atomic bombings.
For the allies to take over Okinawa island, it took 80+ days of near constant combat, resulting in U.S. manpower losses of over 82,000 casualties, including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses) of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing. All this for an island of 463 square miles.
And the size of entire Japan is 145,925 square miles.
And Japan was actually saving up their best troops/planes/ships for the defense of the main Japanese islands.
And let's not forget how many Japanese soldiers and civilians were killed in Okinawa battle. Many, many more Japanese civilians would've been killed if an invasion took place. School girls were being instructed on how to use grenades/homemade weapons to try to kill invading US troops.
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were made to prepare for the invasion of Japanese main islands. After Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, they still haven't exhausted the stock.
Your argument is that the U.S. military was justified in committing an awful act because, if it hadn't, it would have instead chosen to commit an even more awful act.
You know that Japan was preparing for intense defense fight in case the main island gets invaded, right? Here is from War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
In light of this, what do you suggest US should have done?
100,000 Japanese civilians died in one night of bombing. And the govt presses on, and 40,000 civilians died on Okinawa. Japan still refused to surrender.
Not much better proof needed to show that Japanese leadership would've watched their population die of starvation over months and years.
Japan had no capacity to attack anywhere anymore. All of its fleet had been sunk. What was the point of leveling the country to the ground, when the opponent is already KO and on its knees ?
The point was to neuter the Japanese imperial system, which had declared war on and attacked the US, aligned with the axis, and spent the previous decade butchering Asia. That required total capitulation and the abolition of their State Shintoism, not a mere agreement to cease hostilities.
Given the vast genocide Japan had committed - given their fanaticism - there was also no way to know for sure that Japan would cease its war machine and territorial conquest aims, without invading and overseeing the dismantling of their system.
After what Japan had done, were the allies supposed to just take Japan's word for it, that they were going to become peaceful and withdraw from mainland Asia permanently?
A blockade, no fuel, no food, Russian invasion imminent unless surrender to the US. this is a big "What if" and I do not think we can say outcome A or B with any certainty.
Come on, the Japanese were already about to surrender when they learnt that the Russians, having dealt with the German side of the front, would land in Japan. Japan was already utterly destroyed by that time, it was only a matter of time for total capitulation.
In particular it promised that Japan would be allowed to govern herself after an occupation.
The Russian role in all of this is also pretty nuanced. They didn't sign the Potsdam Deceleration because they weren't yet at war with Japan. Once Russia was in the war then the status of Potsdam became questionable for the Japanese government, it was a classic high-pressure sales tactic. "Take this offer before it expires."
The emperor mentioned the atomic bomb as a reason for the surrender in his rescript, but that was likely just a face-saving excuse. The government already demonstrated its willingness to let the entire population of Japan die fighting the allies so it doesn't seem too reasonable that they'd quibble over the means.
The point of view then was that the war occurred because Germany had no truly been defeated in World War I. All where concerned with not seeing another world war.
In addition, there is no evidence that any peace proposal would have been acceptable to the cabinet at this time.
I agree in spirit. It's worth including "private" schools in your statement. Depending upon local culture, non-government schools often have curriculums as ignorance-inducing as curriculums of government schools. Encouraging nationalism and a lack of self-awareness, criticism, and skepticism is a recipe to foment, forge, and forgive atrocity. There exists an alarming number of people who fail to even question the ethical basis of Vietnam, let alone be concerned about human rights and atrocities of powers that subject them and the rest of the world in the present or in a more distant past.
Go take a look to Hell to Pay by D.M. Giangreco. Compared to the alternatives - mass starvation of the Japanese by blockade, or tens of millions of Japanese deaths, and one million American deaths, it's looks like a bargain, and it was viewed at the time as the last, best chance, to avoid invading japan.
The specter of nuclear war makes us wish we had never opened that Pandora box, but anyone making the decision in the past could not have made it any other way.
These were different times, where it was still legitimate to win wars. Today's warfare is a long and costly attrition, sparing lives in the short term but taking a much bigger toll in the long term.
WWII was won, with an unconditional surrender, followed by rebuilding and indoctrination. Not merely a cease fire which just flames hostilities in preparation for another round (e.g. Middle Eastern conflicts).
German school teachings don't defend anything. Instead they spend, for many students, roughly two years in a concentrated block of instilling guilt and horror over what happened in WW2.
Japan lost too, but, as much as i love the country, its people and its ideas, they have largely chosen to not teach their citizens that war did happen.
The genocide Japan committed against China, in which they murdered millions of people, is every bit as horrible as the atrocities the Nazis committed. Further, the Japanese committed genocide against many other nations in Asia as well during that era. Unit 731 did things to people that were very comparable to the worst atrocities of the Nazi regime.
How are death camps, the specific targeting of civilians, medical experimentation on detainees, burying prisoners alive and even cannibalism covered under "war of conquest". When does it become genocide? How is it any different (if not worse for its unparalleled scale) than what the Nazis did?
They didn't just target Chinese civilians, they targeted the civilians of every nation they invaded. This includes the British civilians in Singapore and Hong Kong who were sent to ghettos and labour camps, few of who survived. And this was the "preferential" treatment the Brits got. The Chinese and other Asians got far, far worse.
While there are a few groups that call themselves the KKK, as an actual national organization they were gutted by the FBI decades ago. Whenever any self-styled "KKK" group gets large enough, the FBI infiltrates and guts them as well.
It is hard to weed out a general mindset or philosophy entirely, but tearing down organizations is surprisingly easy.
Mind you, there's a downside to that. An FBI that can infiltrate and dismantle the KKK at will can do the same to any legitimate movement for change, like Occupy, etc.
> I don't actually think every single German citizen during WWII was a card carrying Nazi
Regardless of what you were thinking, you said it and i could not have possibly known that you were not actually thinking that, precisely because i have encountered a great and numerous amount of people in my years who do carry that belief. I was not joking when i told you that you were literally indistinguishable from both a very motivated troll and a complete prejudiced ignorant, with no feasible way of determining which it was. If you don't think something, don't say it.
For more than 100 years about one out of four American Nobel Prize winners were foreign born – and in the past 3 years, nearly half of American laureates were immigrants.
Note that this does not include second/third generation immigrants.
What you're describing is the greatest honor a country can receive. There is no higher compliment, than the best and the brightest the world over seeking to immigrate to your shores. They have been seeking America out for centuries because it was and still is an immense land of opportunity.
There are certain stupid people among Abe's camp who pretend that nothing happened in Nanking, but as far as I know Japanese officials have apologized for the country's war crimes on several occasions. How about the US ? Have they ever recognized their (previous and ongoing) war crimes?
German cities still have plagues/statues/memorials everywhere to remind people about the holocaust and the past. In Japan, you will not find a single prominently placed memorial to remind people about the wrongs Japan did, unfortunately.
Even the few small ones that had been placed in country side have been taken down in recent months/years thanks to Abe. And interestingly, Abe's mother's ancestors are from Korea supposedly.
> German cities still have plagues/statues/memorials everywhere to remind people about the holocaust and the past
I don't attribute much importance to monuments and statues. Do people actually care about them ? There were monuments to the ones who fell during 14-18 all over Europe and it did not prevent any of the European countries to enter a large scale bloody war all over again 20 years later. So what are the monuments good for?
> I don't attribute much importance to monuments and statues. Do people actually care about them?
Yes. Here's a cemetary of russian victims in the center of Hannover, right across the street of one of the most popular gathering places in the entire city.
> Japan: When you actively rewrite history books to hide your past sins, you cannot be apologizing sincerely.
I agree with you on this, but if you think Japan is the only country rewriting history books my friend, you are deeply mistaken. Look at what US kids are taught about History, and cry.
The atomic bomb was not available until AFTER the war was over in Italy or Germany.
Edit: the deleted comment this was in reply to was claiming that the US could have dropped the bomb on Italy or Germany, but picked Japan for racist reasons. Namely, they wanted to see what atomic bombs did to people and Japanese people would be more acceptable to the public for such experimentation.
There's an interactive map at the Tokyo-Edo museum (great museum; highly worth your time if you're there) that shows the progression of the bombing campaign over time:
The scale of that is mind-boggling. I had no idea, the first time I saw it, the amount of destruction involved. It rivals Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we (in the US) almost never hear about it.
This reminds me of Robert McNamara's rule for proportionality in the movie The Fog of War. What amount of brutality is necessary to achieve a political objective?
It's long, but quite informative.