Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right decision?

[derspiess]

If the administration is saying it won't be an apology, it will probably be an apology of sorts.

[CountDeMoney]

If the administration is saying it won't be an apology, it will probably be an apology of sorts.

dertrump has spoken.

[grumbler]

If the administration is saying it won't be an apology, it will probably be an apology of sorts.

Why not?  Every previous administration has apologized, by that logic (since none of them apologized, they all issued an apology "of sorts" if your statement is true).

[CountDeMoney]

Now, now grumbler...everybody knows that when Obama does it, it's really just a surrender, 71 years late.

[grumbler]

Picking up on Joan's point, I think it's also important to keep in mind that the unconditional surrender pledge was made not because the Allies were a bunch of meanies but because it was a way to ensure the alliance didn't fracture.

I think the point about the probable ease of obtaining a conditional surrender with retention of the emperor is largely a leap of faith.  There was no historical pattern of conditional surrendering in Japan.  The Japanese military caste was a suicide cult.

These are both excellent points.  The American government couldn't accept a conditional surrender because it was the United Nations that had demanded unconditional surrender.

Plus, the Japanese had made no offer to surrender.  They insisted not on the retention of the emperor, but of the Imperial System (which included an Imperial War Council that allowed the two top Army and the two top Navy officers equal status to the PM).  As I mentioned above, they were not yet ready to negotiate, since they felt that they would be in a stronger position after defeating a US invasion.

[derspiess]

I'm just conditioned by this president that he's going to start with one false claim and then end up with the opposite.  Like when he says something like "I'm a big believer in the free market system" and then proceed to tell you how terrible the free market system is.

Hopefully I'm wrong in this case.

[derspiess]

dertrump has spoken.

Don't tempt me.

[grumbler]

Politically expedient grudges: because if they can't fit, then dammit, we'll make 'em fit!

Shadow of Nanjing hangs over Hiroshima
Updated: 2016-05-11 15:47
China Daily, Official Non-Official Party Mouthpiece

(snip)
But as today's government in Tokyo supports the confrontational US maritime policies in the South China Sea, those attending the summit would also do well to recall the reckless, headlong charge into war of the militarist Japanese governments of the 1930s.

The militarist Chinese government would, indeed, be wise to remember that as they pursue their confrontational maritime strategy in the East and South China Seas.  I hadn't really thought about the parallels, but they are indeed interesting.

[grumbler]

I'm just conditioned by this president that he's going to start with one false claim and then end up with the opposite.  Like when he says something like "I'm a big believer in the free market system" and then proceed to tell you how terrible the free market system is.

Hopefully I'm wrong in this case.

Eh.  He's a president.  At least he didn't promise "mission accomplished" when he bungled the mission.

[Neil]

I hadn't really thought about the parallels, but they are indeed interesting.

I've been considering them.  The similarities between modern fascist China and late Imperial Japan are a little uncanny, although Japan faced much sterner opposition then China does today.

[dps]

Picking up on Joan's point, I think it's also important to keep in mind that the unconditional surrender pledge was made not because the Allies were a bunch of meanies but because it was a way to ensure the alliance didn't fracture.

I think the point about the probable ease of obtaining a conditional surrender with retention of the emperor is largely a leap of faith.  There was no historical pattern of conditional surrendering in Japan.  The Japanese military caste was a suicide cult.

In fairness to some of our military leadership, I don't think that they realized just how fanatical some of the Japanese high command was.  It was pretty clear to our professional military men that Japan had been decisively defeated by the summer of 1945, and they probably figured that their Japanese counterparts could see that as well.  And to some extent, I suppose that many of the high-ups in the Japanese military could see that, but on a certain level they simply weren't thinking in a way we would recognize as rational.

[Admiral Yi]

In fairness to some of our military leadership, I don't think that they realized just how fanatical some of the Japanese high command was.  It was pretty clear to our professional military men that Japan had been decisively defeated by the summer of 1945, and they probably figured that their Japanese counterparts could see that as well.  And to some extent, I suppose that many of the high-ups in the Japanese military could see that, but on a certain level they simply weren't thinking in a way we would recognize as rational.

They had seen garrisons in island after island fight to the bitter end, long after any hope of military victory was extinguished.  Surrenders were something like 15% of casualties.  By any standard that's an insanely low number.  They had seen hopeless banzai charges by the last starving remnants.  They had seen parents jumping off cliffs while holding their children in Saipan and Okinawa. 

[The Brain]

There was no historical pattern of conditional surrendering in Japan.

Elaborate.

[Razgovory]

We can talk about what could have happened, but what did happened not only worked, it deterred future wars.  While there are still wars in the world today, they aren't between great powers, and the frequency of warfare has decline since the Atom bomb has been used.  Pax Atomica has kept the world safe.  I think for that peace to hold people need to be terrified of what a nuclear weapon can do.  The world needed to see the victims.  It needed to see the destruction.

[dps]

In fairness to some of our military leadership, I don't think that they realized just how fanatical some of the Japanese high command was.  It was pretty clear to our professional military men that Japan had been decisively defeated by the summer of 1945, and they probably figured that their Japanese counterparts could see that as well.  And to some extent, I suppose that many of the high-ups in the Japanese military could see that, but on a certain level they simply weren't thinking in a way we would recognize as rational.

They had seen garrisons in island after island fight to the bitter end, long after any hope of military victory was extinguished.  Surrenders were something like 15% of casualties.  By any standard that's an insanely low number.  They had seen hopeless banzai charges by the last starving remnants.  They had seen parents jumping off cliffs while holding their children in Saipan and Okinawa. 

Did the higher-ups (Nimitz, etc.) actually see it personally, though?  It's one thing to read about something in a report;  it's quite another to actually see it yourself.  That's why Eisenhower tried to get every possible American soldier in Europe a visit to a concentration camp site--he wanted each of them to see it for themselves.