I lost a grandfather in the Pacific Theatre, so the personal introduction is much appreciated. Ethics without the personal touch can become falsely anodine, anaesthetised and then septic in war.
Historically, it's an excellent summary, but misses out on the Japanese War Cabinet's decision-making, and on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
It would undoubtedly have been a Wrong to incur any further Allied (yes, mainly US) casualties after June 1945. July 1945 in the Pacific was a little like the Phoney War.
We know that the War Cabinet was split 3:3 after each of the Bombs were dropped, so in addition to the what-if of mainland invasion, another one needs to be addressed: what if we'd simply stopped and left the Soviets continue their invasion? The War Cabinet had been negotiating with the Soviets to try to broker a not-unconditional-surrender agreement. With that broker turning adversary, how long would Japan have taken to surrender anyway? Especially given that the demand for UC was eventually dropped, with the Emperor remaining.
Some wars have descended into wanton cruelty, as a German legal defence argued in Nuremburg, and as witnessed by the War Cabinet's intransigence. If the laws of war guide the conduct of war, the third word in the title will be used less to describe it, and fewer of our loved ones die with the second word.
This is an excellent short summary. I studied this era in detail in the 1970s and my views have not changed. The casualty levels on Okinawa are telling as to what to have reasonably expected in a full scale invasion of Japan. I always suggest people watch The Pacific to understand the brutality of the fight against Japan. Reading about deaths and casualties can never explain the pure mayhem and terror of the war. I personally knew 2 people who were scheduled to fight in an invasion of Japan. They lived long, productive lives and were absolutely convinced Truman saved their lives and that of their children and grandchildren who they believed never would have been born. It’s hypocritically easy to be a Monday morning quarterback almost 80 years after a monumental event where humans had to make the kind of decision Truman had to make. He made the correct decision.
I find it shocking that while Japan commemorates the atomic bombings, it has nothing to say about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops, for example the 1937 Massacre of Nanking, where Japanese slaughtered over 200,000 Chinese civilians in the month after the city had surrendered
The late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was the grandson of postwar Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who ruled Northern China with extreme brutality and extensive use of Chinese slave labor
As a onetime student of Japanese history I am saddened by the persistence of right wing nationalists in attempting to suppress public discourse on the dark subject of militarism and Japanese wartime atrocities. Generally speaking, my impression of Japanese sentiment about the war is the memory of war’s effects on Japan - in my words (this isn’t a quote) “ militarism was very bad, and caused Japan much suffering”. I also believe that outside of Pacifist or “peace advocates “, most Japanese avoid discussing the war. There is widespread public support for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces the right to use force as a means of settling international disputes.
That may be but it is hypocritical and unacceptable that "most Japanese avoid discussing the war" but also expect envoys from all over the world to attend commemorations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Officials are not the people I was referring to when I commented about “most Japanese”. As for hypocrisy — there is plenty of that to go around everywhere, not just in Japan, imho.
It may be that the Hiroshima attack would have sufficed, given time for the Japanese to appreciate what had happened. But the implacable logic of war dictated that the atomic bombardment would continue on a fixed schedule.
I lost a grandfather in the Pacific Theatre, so the personal introduction is much appreciated. Ethics without the personal touch can become falsely anodine, anaesthetised and then septic in war.
Historically, it's an excellent summary, but misses out on the Japanese War Cabinet's decision-making, and on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
It would undoubtedly have been a Wrong to incur any further Allied (yes, mainly US) casualties after June 1945. July 1945 in the Pacific was a little like the Phoney War.
We know that the War Cabinet was split 3:3 after each of the Bombs were dropped, so in addition to the what-if of mainland invasion, another one needs to be addressed: what if we'd simply stopped and left the Soviets continue their invasion? The War Cabinet had been negotiating with the Soviets to try to broker a not-unconditional-surrender agreement. With that broker turning adversary, how long would Japan have taken to surrender anyway? Especially given that the demand for UC was eventually dropped, with the Emperor remaining.
Some wars have descended into wanton cruelty, as a German legal defence argued in Nuremburg, and as witnessed by the War Cabinet's intransigence. If the laws of war guide the conduct of war, the third word in the title will be used less to describe it, and fewer of our loved ones die with the second word.
This is an excellent short summary. I studied this era in detail in the 1970s and my views have not changed. The casualty levels on Okinawa are telling as to what to have reasonably expected in a full scale invasion of Japan. I always suggest people watch The Pacific to understand the brutality of the fight against Japan. Reading about deaths and casualties can never explain the pure mayhem and terror of the war. I personally knew 2 people who were scheduled to fight in an invasion of Japan. They lived long, productive lives and were absolutely convinced Truman saved their lives and that of their children and grandchildren who they believed never would have been born. It’s hypocritically easy to be a Monday morning quarterback almost 80 years after a monumental event where humans had to make the kind of decision Truman had to make. He made the correct decision.
Thanks for reading and commenting. It was indeed the right decision.
“And while this rose made round her cup,
The armies died convulsed. And when
This chaste young silver sun went up
Softly, a thousand shattered men,
One wet corruption, heaped the plain,
After a league-long throb of pain.”
Summer in England, 1914, Alice Maynell
I find it shocking that while Japan commemorates the atomic bombings, it has nothing to say about the atrocities committed by Japanese troops, for example the 1937 Massacre of Nanking, where Japanese slaughtered over 200,000 Chinese civilians in the month after the city had surrendered
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
The late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was the grandson of postwar Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who ruled Northern China with extreme brutality and extensive use of Chinese slave labor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi
Imagine if a senior Nazi criminal had become German Chancellor after the war and founded a political dynasty?
As a onetime student of Japanese history I am saddened by the persistence of right wing nationalists in attempting to suppress public discourse on the dark subject of militarism and Japanese wartime atrocities. Generally speaking, my impression of Japanese sentiment about the war is the memory of war’s effects on Japan - in my words (this isn’t a quote) “ militarism was very bad, and caused Japan much suffering”. I also believe that outside of Pacifist or “peace advocates “, most Japanese avoid discussing the war. There is widespread public support for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces the right to use force as a means of settling international disputes.
That may be but it is hypocritical and unacceptable that "most Japanese avoid discussing the war" but also expect envoys from all over the world to attend commemorations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Officials are not the people I was referring to when I commented about “most Japanese”. As for hypocrisy — there is plenty of that to go around everywhere, not just in Japan, imho.
It’s surprising to think that one atomic bomb did not provoke a surrender; it required two.
It may be that the Hiroshima attack would have sufficed, given time for the Japanese to appreciate what had happened. But the implacable logic of war dictated that the atomic bombardment would continue on a fixed schedule.
To me, the idea that the first bomb was an apocalyptic devastation is mitigated by how long it took Japan to surrender.
How long did it take the US to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?
Actually, it was days before the Japanese government fully appreciated what had happened on August 6th.