World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon May 29, 2017 1:24 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:03 am
Science Fan wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 11:28 pm
If Japan was already on the verge of surrendering, then how come it did not immediately surrender after one atomic bomb was dropped? The fact two bombs were needed undermines the claim Japan was close to surrender.

This argument also seems to implicitly judge the bombing of Japan based on modern ethics as opposed to the ethics in use at the time. Every nation involved in WWII targeted civilians.
By the time leading up to the Atomic Bomb dropping, Japan had virtually nothing to fight with. They had no oil, their Navy was pretty much destroyed. They were defeated in all but having a piece of paper signed by them saying so. The US was pushing for nothing short of unconditional surrender. Maybe if we had tried negotiating a little less rigidly the Japanese would have at least agreed to a cessation of hostilities. Perhaps we could have allowed them to keep whatever imperial possessions they still had in exchange for an agreement to end hostilities toward the Allies.

Regarding the morality of bombing civilians. Even at the time it was largely considered immoral to kill civilians in war, the same as we still bomb countries today even though we cringe when collateral casualties are hit. We do it anyway because we figure whatever benefits outweigh the costs.
Gary,

What you say doesn't jive with history:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -hiroshima

"... President Harry S. Truman, warned by some of his advisers that any attempt to invade Japan would result in horrific American casualties, ordered that the new weapon be used to bring the war to a speedy end."

PhilX

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Gary Childress » Mon May 29, 2017 1:31 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:24 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:03 am
Science Fan wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 11:28 pm
If Japan was already on the verge of surrendering, then how come it did not immediately surrender after one atomic bomb was dropped? The fact two bombs were needed undermines the claim Japan was close to surrender.

This argument also seems to implicitly judge the bombing of Japan based on modern ethics as opposed to the ethics in use at the time. Every nation involved in WWII targeted civilians.
By the time leading up to the Atomic Bomb dropping, Japan had virtually nothing to fight with. They had no oil, their Navy was pretty much destroyed. They were defeated in all but having a piece of paper signed by them saying so. The US was pushing for nothing short of unconditional surrender. Maybe if we had tried negotiating a little less rigidly the Japanese would have at least agreed to a cessation of hostilities. Perhaps we could have allowed them to keep whatever imperial possessions they still had in exchange for an agreement to end hostilities toward the Allies.

Regarding the morality of bombing civilians. Even at the time it was largely considered immoral to kill civilians in war, the same as we still bomb countries today even though we cringe when collateral casualties are hit. We do it anyway because we figure whatever benefits outweigh the costs.
Gary,

What you say doesn't jive with history:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -hiroshima

"... President Harry S. Truman, warned by some of his advisers that any attempt to invade Japan would result in horrific American casualties, ordered that the new weapon be used to bring the war to a speedy end."

PhilX
Why would we need to invade Japan if perhaps a negotiated cessation of hostilities could have been attained--had we perhaps tried? The US pushed for unconditional surrender and nothing less the whole way. It was our way or the highway. So we blew up hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocent civilians instead to get our way.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon May 29, 2017 1:39 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:31 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:24 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:03 am


By the time leading up to the Atomic Bomb dropping, Japan had virtually nothing to fight with. They had no oil, their Navy was pretty much destroyed. They were defeated in all but having a piece of paper signed by them saying so. The US was pushing for nothing short of unconditional surrender. Maybe if we had tried negotiating a little less rigidly the Japanese would have at least agreed to a cessation of hostilities. Perhaps we could have allowed them to keep whatever imperial possessions they still had in exchange for an agreement to end hostilities toward the Allies.

Regarding the morality of bombing civilians. Even at the time it was largely considered immoral to kill civilians in war, the same as we still bomb countries today even though we cringe when collateral casualties are hit. We do it anyway because we figure whatever benefits outweigh the costs.
Gary,

What you say doesn't jive with history:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -hiroshima

"... President Harry S. Truman, warned by some of his advisers that any attempt to invade Japan would result in horrific American casualties, ordered that the new weapon be used to bring the war to a speedy end."

PhilX
Why would we need to invade Japan if perhaps a negotiated cessation of hostilities could have been attained--had we perhaps tried? The US pushed for unconditional surrender and nothing less the whole way. It was our way or the highway. So we blew up hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocent civilians instead to get our way.
The big word is if. And unconditional surrender was required to stop the war as Japan was the aggressor which committed atrocities toward us and other countries.

PhilX

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Gary Childress » Mon May 29, 2017 1:45 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:39 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:31 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:24 am


Gary,

What you say doesn't jive with history:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -hiroshima

"... President Harry S. Truman, warned by some of his advisers that any attempt to invade Japan would result in horrific American casualties, ordered that the new weapon be used to bring the war to a speedy end."

PhilX
Why would we need to invade Japan if perhaps a negotiated cessation of hostilities could have been attained--had we perhaps tried? The US pushed for unconditional surrender and nothing less the whole way. It was our way or the highway. So we blew up hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocent civilians instead to get our way.
The big word is if. And unconditional surrender was required to stop the war as Japan was the aggressor which committed atrocities toward us and other countries.

PhilX
You are absolutely right. "If" is a big word here. But we'll never know because the Allies didn't even try to negotiate a surrender with conditions. As far as being an aggressor; Japan was, but by the end of the war they had nothing to aggress with. and without a connection to oil they may as well have trained their army in Medieval jousting and their air force personnel in how to fly kites.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon May 29, 2017 2:06 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:45 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:39 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:31 am


Why would we need to invade Japan if perhaps a negotiated cessation of hostilities could have been attained--had we perhaps tried? The US pushed for unconditional surrender and nothing less the whole way. It was our way or the highway. So we blew up hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocent civilians instead to get our way.
The big word is if. And unconditional surrender was required to stop the war as Japan was the aggressor which committed atrocities toward us and other countries.

PhilX
You are absolutely right. "If" is a big word here. But we'll never know because the Allies didn't even try to negotiate a surrender with conditions. As far as being an aggressor; Japan was, but by the end of the war they had nothing to aggress with. and without a connection to oil they may as well have trained their army in Medieval jousting and their air force personnel in how to fly kites.
Having nothing to "aggress" with doesn't jive with horrific American casualties.

Reviewing the history, I see nothing to persuade me that Japan didn't want to continue the war (short of using nuclear weapons).

PhilX

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon May 29, 2017 11:53 am

This conversation is terrible.

The Japanese army would definitely have inflicted huge casualties without any need for oil. They invaded Singapore by riding bicycles through the Malaysian jungle after all. But more importantly, when you fight with limited resources against an invading army, you don't need tanks to go and find them, you dig a hole and hide in it until they walk close to you - which is exactly what they would have done.

You are fabulising about the terms of a Japanese negotiated settlement.

At the end of WWII they had two possible enemies to surrender to. Russia, which declared war and began assaulting them between the two atomic blasts, and America. Russia had already murdered their own royal family, and showed no merciful disposition towards the Emperor. So they surrendered to the USA unconditionally while there was time. Their condition, had they been in a position to enforce one, would have been to suffer no loss the emperor's divinity and no foreign imposed government structures (you can be fairly sure the entire existing government would have commuted seppuku to make way for a new generation of similarly militaristic types). They would not have accepted foreign territory in return for surrendering either of these things, and had that regime continued into the nuclear age, they would not have respected or found admirable any apparent hesitation on the part of America to use such weapons. they would have viewed that entirely as a weakness to exploit later.

Had somebody decided to not invade the Japanese homeland and instead negotiate the ceasefire with concessions you suggest Gary, that would have left Manchuria in Japanese possession. You may wish to Google Japanese war crimes in that region and have a little think about whether you are proud of that suggestion Gary.

Walker
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Walker » Mon May 29, 2017 2:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:45 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:39 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 1:31 am


Why would we need to invade Japan if perhaps a negotiated cessation of hostilities could have been attained--had we perhaps tried? The US pushed for unconditional surrender and nothing less the whole way. It was our way or the highway. So we blew up hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocent civilians instead to get our way.
The big word is if. And unconditional surrender was required to stop the war as Japan was the aggressor which committed atrocities toward us and other countries.

PhilX
You are absolutely right. "If" is a big word here. But we'll never know because the Allies didn't even try to negotiate a surrender with conditions. As far as being an aggressor; Japan was, but by the end of the war they had nothing to aggress with. and without a connection to oil they may as well have trained their army in Medieval jousting and their air force personnel in how to fly kites.
It's well documented that the Japanese civilian population was ready to die for the cause. Women were killing their kids off a cliff, husbands were killing wives and then themselves. Kamikaze was not limited to a few fanatical warriors, but rather was a state of consciousness accessible to all and encouraged. Soldiers fought to the death and did not surrender.

I figure you know this.

So, it appears that your position is: If a population is committed to live free or die, why not just let them live.

Correct?

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Gary Childress » Mon May 29, 2017 7:53 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 2:22 pm
So, it appears that your position is: If a population is committed to live free or die, why not just let them live.

Correct?
That may sum it up pretty well, I think.

Walker
Posts: 6834
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Walker » Tue May 30, 2017 2:10 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 7:53 pm
Walker wrote:
Mon May 29, 2017 2:22 pm
So, it appears that your position is: If a population is committed to live free or die, why not just let them live.

Correct?
That may sum it up pretty well, I think.
Although off your intended topic, Japan has done well since the unconditional surrender.

After the war, the Japanese had the desire and the will to rebuild, but they didn’t know how.

This man showed them how to achieve quality control through statistical process control, which made their products desirable. Fascinating story.
W. Edwards Deming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

The facts indicate a causality, namely:
Unconditional surrender to the United States results in prosperity.

spike
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by spike » Tue May 30, 2017 2:39 pm

The ending of World War II and use of the atomic bomb brought an unconditional peace between nations that never existed before. It brought the United Nations and established Human Rights. The movement is still continuing.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed May 31, 2017 1:29 am

spike wrote:
Tue May 30, 2017 2:39 pm
The ending of World War II and use of the atomic bomb brought an unconditional peace between nations that never existed before. It brought the United Nations and established Human Rights. The movement is still continuing.
Right. Because the world is so 'peaceful' now. How the hell would you know what 'might' have happened? Only the most rabid warmongering shit-head 'justifies' the dropping of the atomic bombs. You wouldn't be defending it if the US had been the victim. It wanted to test its new toys and show that it was the biggest thug on the block. End of.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed May 31, 2017 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed May 31, 2017 1:39 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:29 am
spike wrote:
Tue May 30, 2017 2:39 pm
The ending of World War II and use of the atomic bomb brought an unconditional peace between nations that never existed before. It brought the United Nations and established Human Rights. The movement is still continuing.
Right. Because the world is so 'peaceful' now. How the hell would you know what 'might' have happened? Only the most rabid warmongering shit-head 'justifies' the dropping of the atomic bombs. You wouldn't be defending it if the US had been the victim. It wanted to test its new toys and show that it was the biggest thug on the block. End of.
Baloney because it's not in accord with what history shows which you seek to ignore. I can bring up many ways to justify those bombs; let it suffice to say that many lives were saved and many casualties were averted which only a shithead would try to overlook in revisionist history.
Truman made the right decision.

PhilX

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed May 31, 2017 1:51 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:39 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:29 am
spike wrote:
Tue May 30, 2017 2:39 pm
The ending of World War II and use of the atomic bomb brought an unconditional peace between nations that never existed before. It brought the United Nations and established Human Rights. The movement is still continuing.
Right. Because the world is so 'peaceful' now. How the hell would you know what 'might' have happened? Only the most rabid warmongering shit-head 'justifies' the dropping of the atomic bombs. You wouldn't be defending it if the US had been the victim. It wanted to test its new toys and show that it was the biggest thug on the block. End of.
Baloney because it's not in accord with what history shows which you seek to ignore. I can bring up many ways to justify those bombs; let it suffice to say that many lives were saved and many casualties were averted which only a shithead would try to overlook in revisionist history.
Truman made the right decision.

PhilX
Prove it. Warmongering, psychopathic fuckhead.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed May 31, 2017 1:55 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:51 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:39 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:29 am

Right. Because the world is so 'peaceful' now. How the hell would you know what 'might' have happened? Only the most rabid warmongering shit-head 'justifies' the dropping of the atomic bombs. You wouldn't be defending it if the US had been the victim. It wanted to test its new toys and show that it was the biggest thug on the block. End of.
Baloney because it's not in accord with what history shows which you seek to ignore. I can bring up many ways to justify those bombs; let it suffice to say that many lives were saved and many casualties were averted which only a shithead would try to overlook in revisionist history.
Truman made the right decision.

PhilX
Prove it. Warmongering, psychopathic fuckhead.
Are we back to name calling? This shows the weakness of your argument and position. You want proof. Look up a Wiki article. Oh btw, hooray for the red, white and blue.

PhilX

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: World War II and Aftermath: Mistakes?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed May 31, 2017 2:00 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:55 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:51 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 1:39 am


Baloney because it's not in accord with what history shows which you seek to ignore. I can bring up many ways to justify those bombs; let it suffice to say that many lives were saved and many casualties were averted which only a shithead would try to overlook in revisionist history.
Truman made the right decision.

PhilX
Prove it. Warmongering, psychopathic fuckhead.
Are we back to name calling? This shows the weakness of your argument and position. You want proof. Look up a Wiki article. Oh btw, hooray for the red, white and blue.

PhilX
'Name-calling' doesn't weaken an argument, idiot. You are a fan of France are you? Such refined sophisticated people. I'm a bit of a fan too.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests