General Discussion

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)

45. I'm not sure what he based that statement on, as the historical record is far more

Wed Dec 31, 2014, 03:40 PM

Dec 2014

ambiguous and equivocal than Ike's words would suggest.

Without dredging up the entire debate yet again, there were informal back channel negotiations under way to explore a way for Japan to surrender without Hirohito having to abdicate. However, Hirohito was surrounded by the type of militarists who make Wolfowitz, Perle and even Cheney look like choir boys by comparison. Surrender was the farthest thing from their mindset before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Those informal back-channel negotiations may have proceeded with Hirohito's knowledge but certainly did not have his overt blessing. That MacArthur and Truman allowed Hirohito to remain Emperor as a type of ceremonial figurehead after Japan surrendered makes the posturing on both sides before Hiroshima seem petty and childish. But Hirohito and his court retinue bear some significant responsibility for perpetuating the combat.

Were the U.S. and her allies supposed to commit to a conventional invasion of the home islands, at the cost of tens of thousands of additional U.S. and allied casualties and as many as 1 million Japanese civilian casualities out of some moral squeamishness?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russian leaders call for international investigation into US atomic bombings of Japan [View all] Cali_Democrat Dec 2014 OP

No doubt they figure they ditched their responsibility for the Gulags Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #1

Maybe the Russians gladium et scutum Jan 2015 #102

I'm sure that will have all of Washington D.C. on pins and needles bluestateguy Dec 2014 #2

Do they really want to open that can of worms? NuclearDem Dec 2014 #3

Never mind Kyshtym, Chernobyl, "Czar Bomba," etc... Archae Dec 2014 #4

sure they do Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #5

This isn't unique. Many people, including some in the US, have suggested this for many years. PSPS Dec 2014 #6

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than, say Dresden... Adrahil Dec 2014 #7

A war crimes case can't be made. You can't make a weapon illegal ex post facto stevenleser Dec 2014 #8

Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" is the fictional treatment of one KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #23

No, crimes against humanity and war crimes were not ex post facto. There had been two iterations stevenleser Dec 2014 #31

I knew about Geneva and its proscriptions wrt POWs and refugees. I was referring instead KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #33

They were still trying to cover their tracks as the war was ending... Historic NY Jan 2015 #80

Oh, yes, the Nazis absolutely exhibited an 'awareness of guilt' in many ways. The 'ex post facto' KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #84

You greatly oversimplify the issue. Vattel Dec 2014 #24

Whether something is ex-post facto or not IS very simple. Glad you noticed. nt stevenleser Dec 2014 #30

No one is suggesting the strawman argument that ex-post facto laws are binding. Vattel Dec 2014 #36

Which combatant in WWII didn't bomb cities? EX500rider Jan 2015 #70

Ikr? One good murder deserves another. Vattel Jan 2015 #91

My point is you can't single out the US for "war crimes" because of bombing if every.. EX500rider Jan 2015 #106

Oh, I am sorry, I see your point now. Vattel Jan 2015 #108

None but the US used atomic bombs. Then or since. WinkyDink Jan 2015 #98

So? Are they somehow worse then the conventional bombing that killed far more? EX500rider Jan 2015 #121

Well, if a litle thing like radiation means nothing to you.... Plus, that "estimate" total is quite WinkyDink Jan 2015 #122

Here is something contemporary Russian leaders have not considered stevenleser Dec 2014 #9

Certainly, evidence from Allied war planners would also need to be considered, since a KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #25

That is correct. By demonstrating the power of the new weapon the war was ended much sooner. jwirr Dec 2014 #43

It's a very disturbing moral calculus, but just to reiterate: the war ending sooner meant not KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #44

I remember how my parents felt about Harry Truman and a lot of it was the very thing we are jwirr Dec 2014 #49

Assuming an invasion was necessary is the error in your logic Bonobo Dec 2014 #56

Hmm, well that's an interesting question you pose. I'm not enough of an expert in the field to KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #65

As to the issue of ensuring against privations... Bonobo Jan 2015 #66

Like I said, it's a damned good question and I'm not well-enough versed in the period to KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #69

I don't think it's silly for Asians to have demanded that Bonobo Jan 2015 #72

Ah, I got you. No, I doubt that the haberdasher from Independence, MO gave much KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #74

Thank you, King. Bonobo Jan 2015 #75

How about the thousands dying daily in occupied countries? hack89 Jan 2015 #123

The Japanese already were determined to fight to the death... Historic NY Jan 2015 #87

The Smithsonian had a great exhibit in the mid to late 90s with the fuselage of the plan davidpdx Jan 2015 #105

Because people were still dying in China and elsewhere in Asia due to the war.. EX500rider Jan 2015 #71

The starvation of Japanese cannot be considered Bonobo Jan 2015 #73

No, but it can be a counter argument to people who say.. EX500rider Jan 2015 #76

Neither do I, but it certainly is not a foregone Bonobo Jan 2015 #81

There was also the matter of how many Chinese were dying every month as the war ground on... EX500rider Jan 2015 #83

Thank you for the link. Bonobo Jan 2015 #85

The desire to end the war quickly is all the rationale needed. MicaelS Jan 2015 #79

And yet the Taiwanese preferred them to the Chinese. Bonobo Jan 2015 #82

Wow, talk about being a true apologist for terrible atrocities. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #88

You've spoken to many Taiwanese? Bonobo Jan 2015 #89

I'm full of shit? What a fucking laugh, and a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #90

I cited only Taiwan and Manchuria. Bonobo Jan 2015 #92

Oh GMAFB. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #93

I didn't assume, I asked you. Bonobo Jan 2015 #94

Welcome to my Ignore list. I'm done with you. (nm) jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #95

Ignore list is appropriate given your predilection Bonobo Jan 2015 #96

Yawn. Speak for yourself, man. Seriously. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #99

Don't flatter yourself, Mr. David Irving jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #110

Oh, you're gonna get it when dad finds out. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #135

Let's order pizza. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #136

Extra cheese, please Aerows Jan 2015 #137

For the record, I am NOT David Irving. Bonobo Jan 2015 #139

I know Aerows Jan 2015 #140

The 25 million dead Chinese figure isn't too far off: EX500rider Jan 2015 #109

The strain on Putin is starting to show. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #10

Really. that's my read, justin. Cha Dec 2014 #13

They want to execute Harry Truman? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #11

Or maybe they just want to derail his 2016 electoral campaign. I'm definitely reconsidering Dewey. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #18

125,000 men, women and children burned to cinders in one night in Tokyo. Bonobo Dec 2014 #12

So were Unit 731, the Nanjing Massacre, the Manila Massacre, and others jdenver_2624 Dec 2014 #40

Ever heard of the 228 incident by China? Bonobo Dec 2014 #54

Please do keep on being an apologist for historical crimes. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #57

Odd that you would interpret it that way. Bonobo Jan 2015 #58

Your reply really says quite a lot about your thoughts on this matter. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #60

The only denial of war crimes I see is yours. Bonobo Jan 2015 #61

When did I ever say those weren't war crimes? jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #62

And when did I ever apologize for Japanese war crimes? Bonobo Jan 2015 #63

"Sputterings of outrage"? Don't make me laugh. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #64

I think that's best JDenver. Bonobo Jan 2015 #67

Embarrassment? Talk about delusions of self-grandeur! jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #68

FUCK YOU VLAD davidpdx Dec 2014 #14

I'm for it newfie11 Dec 2014 #15

"There was NO reason to drop those bombs." EX500rider Jan 2015 #111

Read on please newfie11 Jan 2015 #115

How about an investigation into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? hobbit709 Dec 2014 #16

Or the massacre of Katyn forest. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #19

Or Holodomor. NuclearDem Dec 2014 #28

Or the Ukrainian famine Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #29

Yeah, Russia is about the last country that should want to go digging up WWII skeletons. cemaphonic Dec 2014 #35

Communists are funny... ileus Dec 2014 #17

Well, you know how long it takes to get the paperwork through the bureaucracy. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #20

I wonder why they are focusing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Vattel Dec 2014 #21

By that standard every country in WWII carried out a campaign of mass murder hack89 Dec 2014 #27

I am not saying that the US is uniquely guilty here. Vattel Dec 2014 #38

Ok nt hack89 Dec 2014 #39

It was a nasty war..... Adrahil Jan 2015 #124

Actually, most nations involved in WWII did not fire bomb population centers. Vattel Jan 2015 #133

If you wanna limit yourself to fire bombing.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #134

By that time, the battle of Britain had ended several years before and Britain had already bombed stevenleser Dec 2014 #32

Ikr? Why would I focus on the US populaton bombing in a post about US population bombing? Vattel Dec 2014 #37

No, under an OP about the Russians and a WORLD war II incident where most of the participants stevenleser Jan 2015 #113

Actually, most of the participants didn't do anything close to the sort of fire-bombing Vattel Jan 2015 #120

Because those two cities were selected as the targets for a demonstration. All other bombings by jwirr Dec 2014 #42

There were four citys that had been either not bombed oneshooter Dec 2014 #53

The first bomb went off in New Mexico. former9thward Jan 2015 #78

Not arguing the that it was not a war crime. Was the bombing of Pearl Harbor also a war crime? jwirr Jan 2015 #101

I doubt Pearl Harbor would be considered a war crime. former9thward Jan 2015 #107

I have always wondered. I kind of think that my dad's generation would have considered it so but jwirr Jan 2015 #112

It was absolutely a war crime as it was the opening salvo in an unprovoked war of aggression. stevenleser Jan 2015 #114

Not according to international law. former9thward Jan 2015 #117

Yes according to international law unprovoked war is a war crime and its very easy to research stevenleser Jan 2015 #118

By your own definitions Pearl Harbor occurred before the existence of the UN. former9thward Jan 2015 #119

Yes, that is true there were primary targets picked out with alternatives davidpdx Jan 2015 #104

My first thought is just what is Putin planning on doing? MiniMe Dec 2014 #22

Showboating to Russian nationalists, pretty much. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #51

Leaders or leader? MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #26

I'm a little confused by your post Cali_Democrat Dec 2014 #34

I'm not sure what he based that statement on, as the historical record is far more KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #45

I'm generally in agreement with you, but... MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #48

While Russia has no room to talk I do remember my father explaining the bombings of Japan as jwirr Dec 2014 #41

"just a farmer in Iowa" who helped feed his nation and the world. Hat tip to all KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #46

Thank you. jwirr Dec 2014 #50

There should be an investigation of The Katyn Forest Massacre./NT DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2014 #47

Estimates of those who died under Stalin reach 20,000,000 panader0 Dec 2014 #52

Timing seems a bit strange. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #55

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.... steve2470 Jan 2015 #59

Right after the Potimkin Mutiny report is done arely staircase Jan 2015 #77

Sure, I'm fine with it so long as the upward to 2 million women raped by the Soviets is too. herding cats Jan 2015 #86

Pointing out the war crimes of others is not a defense. WinkyDink Jan 2015 #97

in historical context it does highlight the futility of Putin's statement. KittyWampus Jan 2015 #103

They had a new toy and had to try it out. nilesobek Jan 2015 #100

No cause justifies the deaths of innocent people. Albert Camus Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #116

It's lovely that you live in such a black and white world. Adrahil Jan 2015 #125

It must be difficult living in a world that justifies killing innocent people. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #126

I don't believe in moral absolutes. Adrahil Jan 2015 #127

So, what are some of the causes YOU would kill innocent civilians for? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #128

Here's one.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #129

Would you pull the trigger? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #130

First off.... Do you admit that there may be times when.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #131

Not in my mind, when I make it personal. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2015 #132

This is the most awful string of responses to an OP that I've ever read, anywhere. delrem Jan 2015 #138