Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If Truman refused to use the atomic bomb on Japan, what should he have done instead? [View all]hack89
(39,181 posts)54. The Japanese murdered between 3 and 10 million civilians from 1937 to 1945
The table next lists estimates of the total Asian forced laborers who died from Japanese maltreatment. The most notorious case of indifference to the health and welfare of prisoners and forced laborers was the building of the Burma-Thailand railroad in 1942 to 1943. Estimates of those killed, including POWs, are given (lines 97 to 104) in the table. I already included these POW deaths under the POW total (line 93). As for Asian forced laborers working on the railroad, 30,000 to 100,000 died, probably 60,000 (line 105).
I also list forced labor deaths for specific countries, beginning with Indonesia (Dutch East Indies, at the time). How many Indonesian forced laborers were actually conscripted by the Japanese is unknown. Estimates run as high as 1,500,000 (line 110a); even more speculative is the death toll. This varies in the sources from 200,000 to 1,430,000 deaths, with perhaps the most likely figure being 300,000 (the figure "accepted" by the United Nations--line 114).
For the Burma-Thailand railroad, and for Indonesia, Korea, and Manchuria, 600,000 to 1,610,000 Asian forced laborers died (line 131). Note that this is probably very conservative, even were some of the estimates too high for a few of the countries included. No figures, even a basis for rough estimates, are available in the sources for Malaysia, Indochina, and Burma (except for those dying while working on the Burma-Thailand railroad). Yet, based on Japanese behavior in other countries, many forced laborers from these countries also must have died elsewhere.
A problem is how to handle the forty-three massacres for which there is a question mark (line 221). For the six massacres in this list for which there are estimates, the average is 1,348 killed. In China, where many more reports of the number massacred were available, the average killed for all the low estimates was 800.2 Moreover, the average killed in massacres in Indonesia (lines 253-284) for which figures are given is a low of 820 (line 286). Taking the three averages into account (1,348, 800, and 820), I assume an average of 800 for the 43 question marks (line 220). This average times the number of question marks gives a low of 42,000 killed; a high of 85,000 if doubled. These figures are surely conservative, since they do not take into account the many massacres that undoubtedly occurred, but were not reported in the sources. Consider that in the Philippines alone, where after the war American military teams made a special effort to investigate all Japanese massacres, about 90,000 civilians were reported killed (lines 339 and 340).
I also list forced labor deaths for specific countries, beginning with Indonesia (Dutch East Indies, at the time). How many Indonesian forced laborers were actually conscripted by the Japanese is unknown. Estimates run as high as 1,500,000 (line 110a); even more speculative is the death toll. This varies in the sources from 200,000 to 1,430,000 deaths, with perhaps the most likely figure being 300,000 (the figure "accepted" by the United Nations--line 114).
For the Burma-Thailand railroad, and for Indonesia, Korea, and Manchuria, 600,000 to 1,610,000 Asian forced laborers died (line 131). Note that this is probably very conservative, even were some of the estimates too high for a few of the countries included. No figures, even a basis for rough estimates, are available in the sources for Malaysia, Indochina, and Burma (except for those dying while working on the Burma-Thailand railroad). Yet, based on Japanese behavior in other countries, many forced laborers from these countries also must have died elsewhere.
A problem is how to handle the forty-three massacres for which there is a question mark (line 221). For the six massacres in this list for which there are estimates, the average is 1,348 killed. In China, where many more reports of the number massacred were available, the average killed for all the low estimates was 800.2 Moreover, the average killed in massacres in Indonesia (lines 253-284) for which figures are given is a low of 820 (line 286). Taking the three averages into account (1,348, 800, and 820), I assume an average of 800 for the 43 question marks (line 220). This average times the number of question marks gives a low of 42,000 killed; a high of 85,000 if doubled. These figures are surely conservative, since they do not take into account the many massacres that undoubtedly occurred, but were not reported in the sources. Consider that in the Philippines alone, where after the war American military teams made a special effort to investigate all Japanese massacres, about 90,000 civilians were reported killed (lines 339 and 340).
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
154 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If Truman refused to use the atomic bomb on Japan, what should he have done instead? [View all]
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
OP
Allow them to kill 15+ million more civilians. Allow tens of thousands US soldiers to die.
The Link
Aug 2013
#1
My father was in the army in Hawaii at that time, preparing for a land invasion.
SharonAnn
Aug 2013
#57
Wasn't it estimated that a "conventional land invasion" would cost 500,000 American lives?
KansDem
Aug 2013
#2
In a tota war? Yes. Lives of your troops are worth any greater number of enemy, even civilians. N/T
GreenStormCloud
Aug 2013
#97
That was discussed. The fear was of the possibility of a well publicized dud aka fizzle
stevenleser
Aug 2013
#12
The estimated deaths from a full invasion was as many as 10 million Japanese. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Aug 2013
#146
Seriously, that war was Hell on Earth. Ask the Chinese what they thought of the Rape of Nanking...
Hekate
Aug 2013
#107
Implicating ethics and morality into conflict is a rather diaphanous baseline
LanternWaste
Aug 2013
#49
I can't argue with that at all; and I've always had a difficult time rationalizing...
LanternWaste
Aug 2013
#81
What a magisterial post! Should be required reading, imho. Thank you for taking
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#99
Because their use became immediately controversial after WWII. Much like Chemical weapons after WWI
stevenleser
Aug 2013
#21
You are the one suggesting that continued Japanese occupation of all those lands
hack89
Aug 2013
#93
I've read estimates that as many as 1 million American soldiers would have died
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#16
I'm the OP and I hastily posted rather than consider a more nuanced wording. Maybe I should have
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#38
I totally understand your position and point. I don't know enough of the history of the
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#32
We didn't understand it, but half of the Japanese government was looking for a face saving way to
stevenleser
Aug 2013
#23
Thanks for the links. Will try to get to them later today. Half of the Japanese
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#36
I think you are correct and your argument is one that opponents of the use of
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#33
I agree with your analysis. It's why I say that Truman chose the 'least-bad' alternative among
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#41
I'm with you, ND, for the most part. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#42
What would the American people have done to Truman if he hadn't used the bomb, and.....
LongTomH
Aug 2013
#53
Promised the safety of the Emperor and his family, promised an honorable surrender, and a peaceful
msanthrope
Aug 2013
#75
Neither. Blockade them until the Russians invaded or a revolution took down the militarists.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Aug 2013
#76
I get where you're coming from and there's a part of me that wants to agree. But (and
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#87
Why is a slow death due to starvation and disease more humane than an atomic bomb?
hack89
Aug 2013
#91
If there's any good that came out of this, it's that no one dared ever do it again.
leveymg
Aug 2013
#82
I think I remember reading Ellsberg speculating that one reason why Vietnam
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#89
Views of Navy Admirals Leahy, Nimitz & Halsey, AF commanding Gen. Hap Arnold, Gen. LeMay....
Faryn Balyncd
Aug 2013
#84
I wonder if anyone here would prefer we had dropped them on Hitler's bunker, which was the intention
leveymg
Aug 2013
#90
Reading all the responses to my OP, I'm reminded of something Robert E. Lee allegedly
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#96
Hmm. I remember that as being said while he was watching the Confederates march
Benton D Struckcheon
Aug 2013
#120
Purple Heart Medals used today were made in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese Mainland
egold2604
Aug 2013
#100
War is terrible for everyone on both sides (except the mercenaries and war
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#129
I think a naval and aerial blockade was another option, although the costs of
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#132
We should have tried to negotiate a settlement whereby Japan gave up its conquered territories.
Vattel
Aug 2013
#138
I'm not enough of an expert in the time or the Japanese imperial mindset. Either in this
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#140
He should have given the Japanese more time to respond to the 1st one, before he used the second
JPZenger
Aug 2013
#143
I read in one of the threads here that the Japanese asked for more time time
HardTimes99
Aug 2013
#151