bodhisamaya Wrote:From what Japanese friends have told me, it is a very common belief among Japanese that Japan tried to surrender prior to the bombing of Hiroshima but America would not accept it. We will never know what the reality actually was though. Those who win wars write the history books. Given that jockeying for post war position started well before WWII even ended, it makes sense. Much more so than the idea that Japanese brass wanted a prolonged campaign on Japanese soil down to the last warm body knowing they had no chance for victory.

It's a very common belief, but at the same time a very uninformed belief. Japan wanted guarantees about the emperor system. The US said unconditional surrender. Japan's position (I mean by that its lack of a bargaining position) was one that, realistically, offered no room for bargaining. The only bargaining was over an amphibious invasion of the main Japanese islands. Japan thought that was their bargaining chip -- that an amphibious invasion would be something so costly they could use it as leverage. Japan was quickly shown that an amphibious invasion was not the only solution from the US side. They quickly threw in the towel, but not until that bluff was called.

When you "try to surrender", you just do so. "We give up, and we toss ourselves upon your mercy or lack thereof." Surrender is not something you have to "try" to do. You do, or you don't. The argument is so facile I cannot believe anyone with half an intellect can buy into it. You surrender, period, and it's over. Anything LESS than that is not a surrender. Surrender means, "We give up, entirely -- we quit." It does NOT mean let's bargain about how we are going to "give up".

When you "surrender", you put your weapons down and refuse to pick them up whatever the consequences. This is surrender, and there is no real other definition. Very, very few Japanese military personnel were in that state of mind.

The concept of "tried to surrender but couldn't" is one that makes the mind revolt. It is, per se, impossible. If you quit fighting and give up (THE definition of surrender), then it's over. Anything after that by the victor then is surely a war crime. But mealy mouthed claims about surrender that are merely negotiations for "surrender on your terms" are NOT surrender. You give up, or you don't. Period. Surrender does not mean "only if you ...".

One must presume that at any time his royal highness the Showa Emperor could have gone on radio and tossed in the towel. He did not until some time after TWO atomic bombs were dropped. One, apparently, was not enough. It was not until societal extinction stared them starkly in the face that the Emperor decided enough was enough. Boo on him.

wow

bodhisamaya Wrote:Much more so than the idea that Japanese brass wanted a prolonged campaign on Japanese soil down to the last warm body knowing they had no chance for victory.

I just want to add one more point here, because I *am* a military historian with a graduate degree in national security studies: No reasonable Japanese military person could envision victory after Midway. It wasn't just the carriers, which was enough of a disaster, but the trained pilots that went down with them. Japan could fight a rearguard action after that, but the end was never, ever in any doubt. Doom.

Now go to Leyte Gulf in October of 1944 -- way before even Okinawa. After this battle, Japan didn't have anything resembling a navy. The 3rd and 7th US fleets basically swept the Japanese navy from the ocean. If you thought you had a chance after Midway, you were a supreme optimist. If you thought you had a chance after Leyte, you were an insane idiot. Period. I will brook no discussion about it. Japan was dead, dead, dead in the water, so to speak.

But give up. Noooooooooo.

So when do reasonable people EXPECT that they *might* give up? Answer: Never. They were doomed, but they kept on plugging away like they lived in an alternative universe where losing, and losing big, eventually translated into victory. There was no reason for America to EVER assume that Japan was willing to quit until Hirohito took to the airwaves. They were beaten so badly they were a sick joke, but still they wanted to fight. They resorted to kamikaze attacks.

There was nothing out of Japan, nothing realistic, that ever suggested that they didn't want to go down in some bizarre Armageddon. Nothing until the Emperor finally stopped it when societal extinction became a serious possibility in the Japanese mind.

I will edit this to say "nothing about surrender". Yes, Japan was willing to stop fighting if, if, if. These terms included guarantees about the emperor, and no occupation. Japan, however, was in no position to negotiate. In poker, it's called overplaying your hand. Again, you either surrender, or you don't. There are no "will surrender if" clauses when you are getting your butt kicked. I mean, you can TRY. But don't be surprised if you get your butt kicked even harder in the process.

A minor point in a debate that remains unsettled after decades, but one that applies, in some small way, to our study of this language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu#c...p._774_0-1

Whether it backs up Wally's point regarding the Japanese terms for surrender, I leave to you. (I also found the NSA article referenced at the bottom to be rather interesting, as well, for many reasons.)

zanzibar Wrote:A minor point in a debate that remains unsettled after decades, but one that applies, in some small way, to our study of this language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu#c...p._774_0-1

Whether it backs up Wally's point regarding the Japanese terms for surrender, I leave to you. (I also found the NSA article referenced at the bottom to be rather interesting, as well, for many reasons.)

The real point is that Japan was genuinely defeated a year or two years earlier. It was continuously inserted into the wrong end of a meat grinder, and the writing was on the wall for all but the most obtuse. If Japan "wanted to try to surrender", that should have been communicated by the end of 1942, a time by which the end was already determined.

But Japan fought on. Doggedly. Determinedly.

Bully for them. But they were getting ground up like so much sausage. They were dead, but like zombies, refused to be dead. It is no surprise, then, that America truly *feared* them. They were like some supernatural enemy that couldn't understand reality. They were apparently going to go down fighting, even if that meant to the last human being on Honshu. That was the image they tried to project, and by golly it worked, didn't it?

Until it provoked a response so devastating that the image could no longer be reasonably projected.

From Wikipedia:

J.F.C. Fuller, in his 'The Decisive Battles of the Western World', writes of the outcome of Leyte Gulf:

The Japanese fleet had [effectively] ceased to exist, and, except by land-based aircraft, their opponents had won undisputed command of the sea.

When Admiral Ozawa was questioned… after the war he replied 'After this battle the surface forces became strictly auxiliary, so that we relied on land forces, special [Kamikaze] attack, and air power… there was no further use assigned to surface vessels, with the exception of some special ships'.

And Admiral Yonai, the Navy Minister, said that he realised that the defeat at Leyte 'was tantamount to the loss of the Philippines.'

As for the larger significance of the battle, he said 'I felt that it was the end.'[2]

---

Time to toss in the towel, yes? Fighting on, at this point, is a war crime.

Mind you, this is October of 1944, *way* before there was ever a Battle of Okinawa, or even a developed US atomic bomb. It was freaking OVER. But somebody refused to accept that idea.

And it wasn't just the Japanese who knew it was over. The Americans knew, too. And the refusal of Japan to simply quit and give up at this point scared them silly, because they thought it would have to be decided on the beaches of the Japanese main islands. Even that was a foregone conclusion. But it was such a bloody one that no reasonable person wanted to contemplate it.

"They were beaten so badly they were a sick joke, but still they wanted to fight. They resorted to kamikaze attacks."

There were teenage boys in those kamikaze planes. Many of them were there because they wanted to defend the country they were about to lose. To characterize these boys as "sick jokes" is to belittle their sacrifice. What they did was both heroic and tragic, a function of the times in which they lived.

vinniram Wrote:"They were beaten so badly they were a sick joke, but still they wanted to fight. They resorted to kamikaze attacks."

There were teenage boys in those kamikaze planes. Many of them were there because they wanted to defend the country they were about to lose. To characterize these boys as "sick jokes" is to belittle their sacrifice. What they did was both heroic and tragic, a function of the times in which they lived.

I have no argument with the fact that they were compelled to do what they did, and the tragedy of that circumstance. (Few were volunteers, you must understand.) Their sacrifice, however, was a nationally pathetic gesture that resulted in absolutely nothing meaningful of any consequence whatsoever, and we must never lose sight of that fact. Individually, they were heroic. And tragic. As a military function, they were the pathetic last gasp of a brain-dead leadership that was so far out of touch with reality that it was committing a war crime by sending them.

And I never characterized the kamikaze pilots as sick jokes, and you know that. So take your straw man and burn him, please. Japan's effort to prolong a war that it had zero chance of not losing (let alone winning) was the sick joke. Make of that what you will. Japanese leadership bears an enduring stain for this, or at least it should. It condemned uncountable numbers of its own people to premature deaths for no good reason at all -- for a goal that the leadership itself, had it been sane, would have realized by THIS TIME was impossible.

when you said "THEY were a sick joke", it did seem as though you were referring to all Japanese soldiers. and, the kamikaze were soldiers for Japan - they were soldiers of the air.

Sir Wally hath layeth'did the historical smack down on this thread.

In a high school class, if you get bullied and asked for your wallet, you don't just surrender. You punch them in the nose and make them nosebleed even if you are a skinny twig and it's a pathetic joke.

masaman, this isn't high school. if a guy holds a knife/gun to your back and demands your wallet, do you still fight back? better question: if he holds a knife/gun to your loved one and demands your valuables, what do you do?

it's a rhetorical question: you give him your wallet (surrender) and live another day, that's what. it's just a #!$@ing wallet--how does that compare to a human life?

PS: i believe this is the first time i've ever seen an internet troll clearly and decisively beaten by a voice of reason. thanks, wally.

vinniram Wrote:once again putting words in my mouth. I simply stated that an event, the atomic bombings, was a mass murder. I didn't mention any other events, nor their status as either mass murders or not mass murders. please don't resort to personal attacks. I am not personally attacking you. If you find me to be such a "simpleton" and a "troll", why are you responding to this thread?

You are not trolling vinniram, nor are you a simpleton. People with an opposing viewpoint are simply attempting to bully you into submission. Classic internet forum tactics. I learned a while ago that debating history & politics on the internet is a pointless exercise because extremists will just shout louder & louder until you give up (and will subsequently interpret that as some kind of victory). No credible historian would suggest that the atomic bombings were anything less than mass murder.

mafried Wrote:masaman, this isn't high school. if a guy holds a knife/gun to your back and demands your wallet,

So you do admit US held a knife and demanded our wallet i.e. Manchu, Taiwan and Korea?

i was just pointing out a flaw using your own analogy. the repercussions of war are life and death for millions of people, not a few bloody noses.

harhol Wrote:

vinniram Wrote:once again putting words in my mouth. I simply stated that an event, the atomic bombings, was a mass murder. I didn't mention any other events, nor their status as either mass murders or not mass murders. please don't resort to personal attacks. I am not personally attacking you. If you find me to be such a "simpleton" and a "troll", why are you responding to this thread?

You are not trolling vinniram, nor are you a simpleton. People with an opposing viewpoint are simply attempting to bully you into submission. Classic internet forum tactics. I learned a while ago that debating history & politics on the internet is a pointless exercise because extremists will just shout louder & louder until you give up (and will subsequently interpret that as some kind of victory).

Well, ***** it! Now I really want mah 40 acres, said in a loud and bullying voice.

Alexander the Great conquered most of his known world, thus disenfranchising his conquer'ees. Has anyone been paid reparations? Discuss.

Quote:No credible historian would suggest that the atomic bombings were anything less than mass murder.

Stwah man. Sir Wally hath made many a saying of what mass murder be. Yee sees what yees wants to see me thinks.

mafried Wrote:i was just pointing out a flaw using your own analogy. the repercussions of war are life and death for millions of people, not a few bloody noses.

I think it is a quite good one. You do know US demanded Japan to relinquish Taiwan, Manchu and Korea, don't you?

And according to your logic, shouldn't US have surrender when Perl Harbor was bombed to avoid loosing more American lives?

I know this kind of conversation most likely goes nowhere and ends up in a flame war, but trying to justify these nukes too much wouldn't make you, and American in general, look very humane.

masaman Wrote:I think it is a quite good one. You do know US demanded Japan to relinquish Taiwan, Manchu and Korea, don't you?

And according to your logic, shouldn't US have surrender when Perl Harbor was bombed to avoid loosing more American lives?

There is a difference between fighting a war and fighting an un-winnable at the cost of your nations own children (the irony) wouldn't you say?

masaman Wrote:I know this kind of conversation most likely goes nowhere and ends up in a flame war, but trying to justify these nukes too much wouldn't make you, and American in general, look very humane.

No one here has yet to justify the use of a nuke. No one (save for the ignorant) would ever justify the use of a nuke. Old people from more than half a century ago made a decision. We, present humans, can do nothing to change that fact.

And on a side note, if reparations were to start anywhere...

I'm starting to think 40 acres isn't enough....

kazelee Wrote:There is a difference between fighting a war and fighting an un-winnable at the cost of your nations own children (the irony) wouldn't you say?

That's why they stopped fighting at last right? I'm only saying just because Japanese government did not surrender easily it did not make the use of nukes any humane. Now there isn't such a thing as a humane war, so I'm not even bashing the use of nukes, and as you said, we can't do anything about what happened in the passed, but we can at least say that the decision wasn't the best one.

With reparations for slavery in America, who pays who? I am Caucasian but of European and Native American ancestry (assuming all women were faithful before DNA testing) so none from my family ever owned slaves in America. Few Caucasians, who lived in America when slavery was legal, could afford slaves as well. If a person is African-American, it is most likely their great, great, great, grandfather owned slaves and created light skinned off-spring that could be sold for more than dark skinned slaves were, and so are descendant from the victims as well as the perpetrators of wrong doing. I am in no way trying to make light of the evils of slavery. It was of course an immoral practice. Who pays those reparations though? The general population of tax payers who themselves are mostly of immigrant decent?

History is a science though a dicey one. Personal accounts of events following times of war are invariably shaded to justify what can often not be justified. I give weight to what I read from educated sources but it has to pass the sniff test. For me, reasons given for dropping the atomic bomb do not pass this. Especially the second one on Nagasaki. It is possible Japanese military leaders were irrational demons who would rather the Japanese people be wiped off the face of the Earth than to face defeat (though I could see Dick Cheney embracing this ideal). It seems more likely to me historical accounts were fudged and post war aspirations played the bigger role in this decision.

masaman Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:There is a difference between fighting a war and fighting an un-winnable at the cost of your nations own children (the irony) wouldn't you say?

That's why they stopped fighting at last right? I'm only saying just because Japanese government did not surrender easily it did not make the use of nukes any humane. Now there isn't such a thing as a humane war, so I'm not even bashing the use of nukes, and as you said, we can't do anything about what happened in the passed, but we can at least say that the decision wasn't the best one.

Read a little more about that era. All sides have something to be ashamed of. What country has made a good decision in the time of war?

kazelee Wrote:Read a little more about that era. All sides have something to be ashamed of. What country has made a good decision in the time of war?

Did I ever say Japan made a good decision? Why do you think I should read a little more about that era? I'm not angry or anything but I'm just curious.

Nanking has nothing to do with nukes. Both were unforgivable atrocities. The fact that the Japanese did X, Y and Z does not change the fact that the United States committed mass murder of civilians.

I just saw a documentary on PBS that interviewed Japanese Kamikaze pilots who were flying missions to the very end, practically right up to the nukes but for one reason or another didn't die in their missions. They didn't seem to indicate that Japan was surrendering. They were basically done for, as a nation, for weeks at least prior, sure, but they weren't giving up. Nor should they have, I guess.

To the contrary, newspapers in Japan were instructing civilians to start gearing up for a defense of the homeland, since they assumed America was about to make landfall on the mainland. So Japanese citizens were making bamboo spears and the like. This, all from Japanese sources and interviews with Japanese.

Sure didn't sound like a country that had been begging for us to accept their surrender.

If these are Japanese sources saying they were trying to surrender, these are the same sources that turn the other way when their own war crimes are brought up. America is painted as evil and Japan as "innocent" when they were way more malicious in their conquering of neighboring countries.

I'm not "proud" we bombed them, because war is always evil. But sometimes it's the lesser evil and must be done. In that light, I think we did the right thing and if I went back in time, would recommend it again. Ask the Chinese/Koreans/Philippinos/etc.. if America did the right thing in nuking them, too. These things aren't done in isolation.

Besides which, if we wanted to scare Russia we could've, you know, used the nukes on Russia to get them to stop their actions, too.

harhol Wrote:Nanking has nothing to do with nukes. Both were unforgivable atrocities. The fact that the Japanese did X, Y and Z does not change the fact that the United States committed mass murder of civilians.

Yep, sure did. Because it's called war.