RE: The Nuking of Japan
September 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2012 at 8:47 pm by Mystic.)
Here is some things I found on the internet:
July 1945 - Japan's peace messages
Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:
July 11 - "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12 - "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13 - "I sent Ando... to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 21: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53). In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets, as some have suggested. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212). (For the most thorough exposition of the view that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan primarily for their effect on the Soviet Union, see Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, published in 1995. Due to its many sources of documentation, this book will be of interest whether one shares Alperovitz' view or not).
http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
Anyways, the Japenese were willing to surrender upon one condition. The emperor remains. They were willing to make all sorts of concessions.
Now the Emperor was sort of god to them, they didn't want to lose that way of life for obvious reasons that it was rooted in their culture.
The first question is why not compromise, why force them to surrender only on your terms?
This is more when "lives" are in stake? Surely if it's all about saving lives, a surrender with their one condition was not totally wrong.
Another is, with this statement:
The nuclear blasts were designed to shock and terrify the public and the leadership into realizing that they could, and would, be annihilated...without ever being able to even put up a fight. Better to surrender and live, than to die without even the dignity of a fight.
This is saying "nuking you and annihilating you" is FINE AND MORAL from US point of view.
This one issue I have with it. When you force a person to do chose between two options, whatever the "punishment" for the wrong choice, it should be "moral" yet.
Basically, it's saying if they didn't surrender, then it is justified to nuke them till they are annihalated.
Basically this is the fear US wanted Japan to have of them, well congratulations, that is the monster much of the world sees now.
A country willing nuke a country to annihilation if they don't get the exact surrender on their own terms.
IF it's all about saving lives, why couldn't the Japanese have been allowed to surrender on the terms they suggest (everything agreed upon except they get to keep the Emperor).
I suggest reading that link. And other links over the internet that show a different perspective then the one you are use to.
Another to mention, is when you open the can of worms of ends justifying the means....we get into all sorts of ethical dilemna.
If a terrorist organization says you support killing civilians (like drones killing civilans in Pakistan + like supporting Israel bombing civilains for a few soldiers captured/killed, as a measured response) and you support sanctions that are destroying the lives of our people, and if you don't stop, we will kill your civilians. We see no way to stop you but force you to stop because your civilians will continuously get killed.
Right now, most people condemn terrorism and see no justification to it.
But if we go by the logic of these two nukes being justified as a means to an end, I don't see how you can condemn one and not the other.
IF you say a few killing of civilains here and there, won't cause US to deter, then what if billions of people are convinced terrorism is not "evil" but "justified" from the perspective of ends justify the means, like nuking two cities to force surrender in the case of Japan which would save lives ofcourse if and only if Allies and US didn't accept the surrender proposal of Japanese...
Also, the sense of honor Japanese have with not surrenderring, they could've gone that route, and that honor could've been more important to the emperor then saving the lives of his people. In this case, you would have nuked them to annihilation.
Really whom is the biggest terrorist? Bin Laden or US.
July 1945 - Japan's peace messages
Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:
July 11 - "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12 - "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13 - "I sent Ando... to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 21: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53). In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets, as some have suggested. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212). (For the most thorough exposition of the view that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan primarily for their effect on the Soviet Union, see Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, published in 1995. Due to its many sources of documentation, this book will be of interest whether one shares Alperovitz' view or not).
http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html
Anyways, the Japenese were willing to surrender upon one condition. The emperor remains. They were willing to make all sorts of concessions.
Now the Emperor was sort of god to them, they didn't want to lose that way of life for obvious reasons that it was rooted in their culture.
The first question is why not compromise, why force them to surrender only on your terms?
This is more when "lives" are in stake? Surely if it's all about saving lives, a surrender with their one condition was not totally wrong.
Another is, with this statement:
The nuclear blasts were designed to shock and terrify the public and the leadership into realizing that they could, and would, be annihilated...without ever being able to even put up a fight. Better to surrender and live, than to die without even the dignity of a fight.
This is saying "nuking you and annihilating you" is FINE AND MORAL from US point of view.
This one issue I have with it. When you force a person to do chose between two options, whatever the "punishment" for the wrong choice, it should be "moral" yet.
Basically, it's saying if they didn't surrender, then it is justified to nuke them till they are annihalated.
Basically this is the fear US wanted Japan to have of them, well congratulations, that is the monster much of the world sees now.
A country willing nuke a country to annihilation if they don't get the exact surrender on their own terms.
IF it's all about saving lives, why couldn't the Japanese have been allowed to surrender on the terms they suggest (everything agreed upon except they get to keep the Emperor).
I suggest reading that link. And other links over the internet that show a different perspective then the one you are use to.
Another to mention, is when you open the can of worms of ends justifying the means....we get into all sorts of ethical dilemna.
If a terrorist organization says you support killing civilians (like drones killing civilans in Pakistan + like supporting Israel bombing civilains for a few soldiers captured/killed, as a measured response) and you support sanctions that are destroying the lives of our people, and if you don't stop, we will kill your civilians. We see no way to stop you but force you to stop because your civilians will continuously get killed.
Right now, most people condemn terrorism and see no justification to it.
But if we go by the logic of these two nukes being justified as a means to an end, I don't see how you can condemn one and not the other.
IF you say a few killing of civilains here and there, won't cause US to deter, then what if billions of people are convinced terrorism is not "evil" but "justified" from the perspective of ends justify the means, like nuking two cities to force surrender in the case of Japan which would save lives ofcourse if and only if Allies and US didn't accept the surrender proposal of Japanese...
Also, the sense of honor Japanese have with not surrenderring, they could've gone that route, and that honor could've been more important to the emperor then saving the lives of his people. In this case, you would have nuked them to annihilation.
Really whom is the biggest terrorist? Bin Laden or US.
