Charge,
The point I was trying to make is really simple. Nor is it "my emotional" viewpoint but one that is fairly well established concerning the issues relative to actually surrendering when both the military (leaders and rank and file) and civilian population, by and large, are not particularly motivated to end a war in what could be considered a defeat (or at least an absolute defeat).
The lack of the term "surrender" reflects that basic emotional state of mind where surrender had never been an option. Propaganda had refused to note Japanese setbacks, though obviously (and it's part of the record) intellectuals in the government, civilian population and military could clearly see through much of the propaganda, particularly when they had access to information that was not readily available to the general population. Still, the "need"to surrender was so ill established in the minds of the Japanese people that there was actually some confusion among some in the population over whether Japan had lost or actually won the war after hearing the speech.
But of course, that was not the major point of the materials quoted -- just an observation. You tend to ignore either willfully or, well, maybe you just missed the big bolded part somehow:
The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Again, not really my observations that the Emperor used the bomb to sell the end of the war to the Japanese people, but one that was already pretty well established in the 20 years before I was even born. That's kinda why I try to base my opinions on things I have any real interest in on primary or carefully selected (for some degree of neutrality) secondary sources, vs. just pulling them out of my ass. Now, I may very well be wrong by using insufficient data, but your unsubstantiated opinions do nothing to change that.
I would have no problem admitting that the bombing was unnecessary if I actually though it was. There are plenty of actions that I would admit fall in that category (such as the bombing of Dresden) and I am open to hearing viewpoints, for example, on the need to invade the Philippines. MacArthur pushed it over King and Nimitz, who wanted to bypass as they had other Japanese conquests.
As to your previous “points.”
I wonder why it was necessary to invade Japan in the first place? Maybe it would have been enough to take a commitee near a desolate island and show the explosion and they would probably sign the peace treaty right away, but I don't think that would have been enough for the winning side.
Well, you just used up one of a handful of weapons that could have been used on enemy targets if they decided not to surrender. Or, the bomb might not have worked. Or, you let the Japanese know you have such a weapon so that they make a heightened effort to stop any B-29 incursion into the airspace. Would some desolate Island have truly shown the power of the bomb? Look at Los Alamos. A big flash and effect on detonation, but not much to see after the fact in an otherwise desolate environment. Also, which scientists would observe? How long to set up the event? Would the Japanese send the appropriate individuals? Would any of the senior politicians or military leaders (who could make such a decision) witness the detonation? “Hey Hirohito, why don’t you and Tojo come out to our special island -- we have something we want to show you…” This is discussed frequently in debates over the bomb. The arguments supporting this have always seemed weak, and full of wishful thinking. What primary or secondary source evidence do you have access to support that this would have likely resulted in surrender relative to the japanese mindset at the time?
Technically it was an interesting experiment of bomb effects on population and I guess some people were more interested in scientific aspects and they felt that they were on the verge of something big. Well they were right, in a way, as was seen during the cold war. The beginning of the atomic age WAS a big thing back then and some countries still fight off the effects of atomic hangover.
You seem to lose track that there had been an ongoing “interesting experiment” in World War that had dragged on for over 6 years and claimed roughly 30 million lives. To use my personal example, the first time my grandfather met my mother, she was 5 years old already. Had there been an invasion he may never have met her. Maybe it was just a big experiment, or maybe they just wanted to end the dammed war.
What about civilians, or more like people working in factories participating in war efforts, and by that definition they are nearly the same as military? The line is blurry today but maybe it was not back then when the enemy was dehumanized and they were to be defeated in any means available.
I don’t have the time or interest to go into the manner in which warfare changed (in terms of the population’s involvement in military conflict) in the transition to the industrial age. Compare and contrast the pre-Napoleonic era, the Napoleonic initial transitions and then the US Civil war. Look at Sherman’s March to the Sea. Consider how much that linkage of production and manpower had advanced by WW1 and WW2.
Maybe they (US) thought that according to Japanese mentality surrender was the same as death so the formal surrender was totally out of question and invasion would have indeed cost dearly to US. After all the surrendering option was more viable than the US would have probably thought.
All in all a tragic event which was a result of excess use of force as we know now but how would they have known back then?
What do you base this emotional opinion on, specifically and in some detail with appropriate sources?
Charon
