> My feeling is that dropping the bomb was overall better than a land invasion.
Years ago I asked my buddy what was his take on dropping the bomb. He answered that when the bombs dropped, his dad was in Florida training for the invasion of Japan.
There's no snappy reply to that particular argument.
How about "it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/research-files/united-...
Ah yes, the US Strategic Bombing Survey, how could they ever be unbiased in concluding that bombing people to smithereens inevitably leads to surrender. No, I'm disinclined to trust their opinion.
We in the modern day have the benefit of being able to pull examples from more than just WW2. Before WW2, the predictions of air power theorists were that strategic bombing would end wars before the powers could properly start mobilizing (look up Giulio Douhet, this was seriously argued). Japan in WW2 is the closest any example of strategic bombing has ever come to compelling a surrender, out of a dozen or so attempts. Its exceptionality is itself a suggestion that maybe bombing's role in Japanese surrender is perhaps inflated.
People also underestimate how much death came from our firebombing which would have continued, and would have come from blockade-induced starvation, relative to the nuclear bomb deaths.
It's not like the numbers would have been lower...
This is a fair criticism (although the generally accepted story is precisely that 'bombing people to smithereens' with atomic weapons led to surrender), but the evidence they based that opinion on is generally available. Having looked at it myself, I wouldn't have said everything they did with quite the same level of confidence, but I agree with their broad strokes opinion that it was most likely possible to achieve a Japanese surrender in a reasonable time-frame without dropping the atomic bombs or invading.
My sense of it is that there was a strong feeling of the need to punish the Japanese, quite apart from any military necessity. I think that, combined with the need to demonstrate the power of the new weapons lead to a reluctance to seriously engage with the Japanese diplomatically. I take as evidence of that the fact that a key sticking point in the surrender decision was the status of the Emperor, who ultimately wasn't removed by the US anyway. The allies could have made their terms much clearer much earlier, and they could have engaged with the Japanese attempts to seek peace much more. And of course there was the ongoing worry that the Soviet Union might gain too much if things weren't sorted out quickly.
From Truman's diaries at the time:
> Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time.
One of my relatives was in Korea staging to invade when the bomb dropped. It is very likely a whole branch of my family would not exist without the bomb.
> Defenders can use anything, including weapons of mass destruction, to defend themselves.
Not according to the Geneva convention. Targeting civilians is a war crime, regardless of who does it.
In many wars, both sides claim to only defend themselves, often both sides even claim to have been attacked first. Just look at the last few wars fought by the US for example. Under such a simplistic moral compass as you gave, they'd both feel justified to do anything.
> Attacking to with intent to kill even one person is crime.
Dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian center is attacking with intent to kill.
Yes, wars are not simple. Fog of war may make it blurry, or enemy may fool each other. For example, soviets shelled their own territory in Finnish war, to pretend that they were attacked first, so they are defending. Russians are using same thing too: they blown up their own buildings to blame Chechen and then started second Chechen war, or, in case of Russo-Ukrainian war, they pretend that Ukraine will be swallowed by NATO and then European and American homosexuals will freely fuck Russian-speaking Ukrainian children, so Russians are invaded to protect Ukrainians!
However, this should not alter your moral compass. Those, who defend themselves, have moral rights to wipe the attackers or invaders.
I don't think there was much in the Geneva Conventions about targeting civilians until 1949 and the 4th Geneva convention. Maybe there was something about bombarding civilians from ships at sea.
I’m pretty sure morality and moral compass predate the Geneva Conventions, though. Just because it was not “sanctioned” doesn’t mean it was necessarily moral, and WEIZSÄCKER’s comment indeed shows it.
More probably exist because of the bomb. A land invasion would've killed an order of magnitude more Japanese, and of course plenty of Americans as well.
And now contrast that to all the families in Japan that do not exist because them.
War is ugly, strategic bombing never worked, proponents knew that (they saidnsouch in their own contemporary reports and statements, going as far as knowing strategic bombing of civilians was in deed a war crime). Nuclear bombs are a contiuation of of strategic bombing, and as strategic bombing goes, they were an unnecessary war crime.
Why does this affect whether it is a war crime or not?
Imperial Japan committed numerous war crimes, whether or not they agreed that they were war crimes at the time. By the same token anything that was done to them should not be judged by what their own standard was.
> by which standard that Imperial Japan recognized and adhered to?
Admonishment to get some damn perspective. What was done to Japan must be evaluated in the context of what Japan would have been doing to American soldiers and POWs had America been forced to invaded Japan proper. That war was non-stop war crimes from Japan. Particularly perfidy, false surrender, which would have gotten huge numbers of Japanese civilians killed in any case. Truman made the right call, for America and for Japan.
I have admitted that the Allies committed war crimes, so why aren't you satisfied? Why are you upset that I insist on pointing out that the Japanese did so as well?
If American war crimes are worth mentioning, then so are Japanese war crimes. Wanting to discuss one without the other isn't reasonable. What you are asking for is the erasure of context, and to that I say No.
Ego mostly, I guess its harder to be righteous and above others if you have some dark spot in your history. Also, some folks don't like complexity of real world so black and white is what they want, and obviously being on good side.
Years ago I asked my buddy what was his take on dropping the bomb. He answered that when the bombs dropped, his dad was in Florida training for the invasion of Japan.
There's no snappy reply to that particular argument.