Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Pirate Radar
Apr 18, 2008

You're not my Ruthie!
You're not my Debbie!
You're not my Sherry!

VitalSigns posted:

To deprive the enemy of the means to carry on the war.

People often die in a blockade (although they don't have to, if the enemy surrenders before starvation happens), but that's not the goal. Just to be clear, is it your position that there is no moral difference between a military blockade and nuclear war on civilian targets?

In what way is a blockade not against civilian targets? Intent, or effects?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

khwarezm
Oct 26, 2010

Deal with it.

Fojar38 posted:

A bunch of people are going to tell you that it's because they were scared of the Soviets but that's not true; the Soviets didn't have any capacity to mount an invasion of the Japanese home islands and everyone knew it.

It wasn't about a Soviet invasion of the home islands (though the Japanese weren't fully sure of the Soviet capabilities and the last 3 years had shown the Soviets to be nearly unstoppable), it was attempting to go through the Soviets as a third party to gain a conditional surrender, which was impossible when they entered the war proper.

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

Budzilla posted:

Thanks, but I was hoping for something more than a post.

If you want to read more there's Richard Frank's Downfall and another book called Japan's Longest Day that talks about these issues quite a bit.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Chantilly Say posted:

In what way is a blockade not against civilian targets? Intent, or effects?

Generally the intent is to deprive the enemy of materiel with military purpose (although that does include food since soliders need to eat), and not specifically to rack up the highest civilian body count possible, unlike targeting the largest remaining cities with nuclear weapons which was explicitly done to kill as many people as possible to terrorize the enemy. Blockades with no purpose other than killing people (like the Entente's blockade of Germany into 1919 or the Dutch Hongerwinter) are indefensible imho.

It's sort of like the difference between bombing a tank factory knowing that innocent people will unavoidably die, and just carpet bombing a city to put the fear of God into them.

Budzilla
Oct 14, 2007

We can all learn from our past mistakes.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

If you want to read more there's Richard Frank's Downfall and another book called Japan's Longest Day that talks about these issues quite a bit.

I will chase those up then.

KaptainKrunk
Feb 6, 2006


Budzilla posted:

I will chase those up then.

There's also a Japanese film called Japan's Longest Day that is decent if you want a fairly good dramatization.

Genocide Tendency
Dec 24, 2009

I get mental health care from the medical equivalent of Skillcraft.


VitalSigns posted:

Generally the intent is to deprive the enemy of materiel with military purpose (although that does include food since soliders need to eat), and not specifically to rack up the highest civilian body count possible, unlike targeting the largest remaining cities with nuclear weapons which was explicitly done to kill as many people as possible to terrorize the enemy. Blockades with no purpose other than killing people (like the Entente's blockade of Germany into 1919 or the Dutch Hongerwinter) are indefensible imho.

It's sort of like the difference between bombing a tank factory knowing that innocent people will unavoidably die, and just carpet bombing a city to put the fear of God into them.

The intent of a blockade is to cut off supplies and force a collapse of will. That is accomplished by making them understand they will die to lack of basic needs.

That's what blockades are.

It forces the inhabitants to chose between resistance and death or surrender and survival.

There is no morality to it. Its just as bad as bombing, it just takes longer.

Junkyard Poodle
May 6, 2011


"War is happy fun time."
-Sherman

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug
What? They bombed a city in the middle of a war?! SHOCKING!

khwarezm posted:

It wasn't about a Soviet invasion of the home islands (though the Japanese weren't fully sure of the Soviet capabilities and the last 3 years had shown the Soviets to be nearly unstoppable), it was attempting to go through the Soviets as a third party to gain a conditional surrender, which was impossible when they entered the war proper.

This. Exactly.

I hate when people bring up "Oh, but Japan wanted to surrender..."

Yes, but they wanted to surrender on their terms. No dice. You start a full blown war of aggression and lose, you don't get to dictate the terms. That was the whole reason Japan appealed to the Soviets at the end of the war, hoping they could convince the Allies to let them surrender conditionally. No dice.

Starshark
Dec 22, 2005
Doctor Rope

CommieGIR posted:

What? They bombed a city in the middle of a war?! SHOCKING!

No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now?

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Starshark posted:

No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now?

Of course we should mourn the loss of civilians in total war. But its TOTAL WAR. That's how total war works.

Here's the thing: There were far more civilian casualties and far more property damage done by the strategic bombing campaign and firebombing campaign before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Why is it about Hiroshima? Why not the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not any of the other major firebombing carried out in the course of a total war campaign against Imperial Japan?

Japan LOVES Historical Revisionism, in many cases even unwilling to face up to the things the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy did during the course of the war, going so far as to make praises of convicted war criminals a common thing. Its part of why they are so hated in Korea and China: They don't give a poo poo about the atrocities they conducted upon others, but they'll talk about the losses they took in a war all day.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Aug 7, 2015

Junkyard Poodle
May 6, 2011


Starshark posted:

No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now?

Lol, don't start poo poo your country can't finish. It's lovely that your leaders let their ambitions bring you some much pain, but we were not going to let that pain spread to our homeland by any means necessary.

Starshark
Dec 22, 2005
Doctor Rope

Junkyard Poodle posted:

Lol, don't start poo poo your country can't finish. It's lovely that your leaders let their ambitions bring you some much pain, but we were not going to let that pain spread to our homeland by any means necessary.

So what if I told you there was a way for the Allies to win the conflict without resorting to killing - or to put it in more realistic terms, resort to killing far fewer - civilians, would you agree to it? Or is the fact that they threw the first punch justification for a free-for-all with as many bodies as you can rack up acceptable?

Just to cut to the chase somewhat, it was the allies who began bombing civilians in WW2 - with dubious justification for their use: http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9062821/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

Starshark fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Aug 7, 2015

KaptainKrunk
Feb 6, 2006


Genocide Tendency posted:

The intent of a blockade is to cut off supplies and force a collapse of will. That is accomplished by making them understand they will die to lack of basic needs.

That's what blockades are.

It forces the inhabitants to chose between resistance and death or surrender and survival.

There is no morality to it. Its just as bad as bombing, it just takes longer.

If it takes longer and gives the enemy more flexibility (rationing, food distribution programs) in responding to it, it can't be just as bad.

A blockade can be lifted; bombs can't be undropped.

The diplomacy of violence is inherently amoral, but there's a spectrum between empty threats and outright extermination.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Starshark posted:

So what if I told you there was a way for the Allies to win the conflict without resorting to killing - or to put it in more realistic terms, resort to killing far fewer - civilians, would you agree to it? Or is the fact that they threw the first punch justification for a free-for-all with as many bodies as you can rack up acceptable?

Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender.

Its not really the Allies problem if they are too busy trying to find a way to wriggle out of the war they started with as much of their material gains left, at the cost of their own people.

Starshark
Dec 22, 2005
Doctor Rope

CommieGIR posted:

Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender.

Its not really the Allies problem if they are too busy trying to find a way to wriggle out of the war they started with as much of their material gains left, at the cost of their own people.

You seem to be dodging the question. Could it be you're having difficulty facing up to the morality of the Allies' actions?

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Starshark posted:

Just to cut to the chase somewhat, it was the allies who began bombing civilians in WW2 - with dubious justification for their use: http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9062821/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

Not really. The Allies were distinctly aware throughout the Poland campaign that the Nazis were very willing to bomb civilian targets, the Allies renounced their moratorium on bombing due to direct Nazi action.

quote:

The British Government's policy was formulated on 31 August 1939: if Germany initiated unrestricted air action, the RAF "should attack objectives vital to Germany's war effort, and in particular her oil resources". If the Luftwaffe confined attacks to purely military targets, the RAF should "launch an attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven" and "attack warships at sea when found within range".[38] The government communicated to their French allies the intention "not to initiate air action which might involve the risk of civilian casualties"[39]

While it was acknowledged bombing Germany would cause civilian casualties, the British government renounced deliberate bombing of civilian property, outside combat zones, as a military tactic.[40] The British changed their policy on 15 May 1940, one day after the German bombing of Rotterdam, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr Area, including oil plants and other civilian industrial targets which aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self-illuminating. The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 15/16 May 1940 while the Battle of France was still continuing


Starshark posted:

You seem to be dodging the question. Could it be you're having difficulty facing up to the morality of the Allies' actions?

What in war is moral?

War sucks. Sorry. That's the way it is. Sherman summed it up pretty well "War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over". Japan started their war against the US with IMMENSE cruelty, the fact that we were trying to get any Japanese civilians we encountered to safety is MORE than humane considering the actions of the Imperial Japanese Army.

icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008


CommieGIR posted:

Not really. The Allies were distinctly aware throughout the Poland campaign that the Nazis were very willing to bomb civilian targets, the Allies renounced their moratorium on bombing due to direct Nazi action.



What in war is moral?

War sucks. Sorry. That's the way it is. Sherman summed it up pretty well "War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over". Japan started their war against the US with IMMENSE cruelty, the fact that we were trying to get any Japanese civilians we encountered to safety is MORE than humane considering the actions of the Imperial Japanese Army.

So you think, for example, the Geneva Conventions are a bunch of poo poo?

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

icantfindaname posted:

So you think, for example, the Geneva Conventions are a bunch of poo poo?

Are you implying we did not comply with the Geneva Conventions? Pretty sure the Germans started the indiscriminate bombing thing long before the British and the Americans, and it was not even governed by the Geneva Conventions yet.

The Geneva Conventions did not cover Ariel Bombardment during World War 2, it was the Hague Conventions that did. Even then, they were rather vague and not ratified by most parties.

But hey, nice strawman.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 7, 2015

Starshark
Dec 22, 2005
Doctor Rope

CommieGIR posted:

Are you implying we did not comply with the Geneva Conventions? Pretty sure the Germans started the indiscriminate bombing thing long before the British and the Americans.

Even if this is true - a point in dispute - do you think the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is justified because the other side did it first?

KaptainKrunk
Feb 6, 2006


Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a bad thing, and the excuse of it saving more lives doesn't hold water when you're weighing the value of civilians versus military personnel, regardless of who started the war or use of a particular weapon or tactic first.

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

Are you implying we did not comply with the Geneva Conventions? Pretty sure the Germans started the indiscriminate bombing thing long before the British and the Americans.

Do you believe there's no point to imposing moral conventions on war? That seems to be the implication in your last post.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Genocide Tendency posted:

The intent of a blockade is to cut off supplies and force a collapse of will. That is accomplished by making them understand they will die to lack of basic needs.

That's what blockades are.

It forces the inhabitants to chose between resistance and death or surrender and survival.

There is no morality to it. Its just as bad as bombing, it just takes longer.

Bombing isn't bad when you're bombing the folks who bombed Pearl Harbor without warning.

If they didn't want to be bombed, they wouldn't have launched that cowardly surprise attack on our boys at Pearl.

Chomskyan posted:

Do you believe there's no point to imposing moral conventions on war? That seems to be the implication in your last post.

No moral conventions can excuse the deliberate and cowardly surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

KaptainKrunk posted:

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a bad thing, and the excuse of it saving more lives doesn't hold water when you're weighing the value of civilians versus military personnel, regardless of who started the war or use of a particular weapon or tactic first.

You can't make war when you have no civilian population from which to provide war material.

In war, not all lives are equal. In WW2, the life of an imperial japanese was rendered moot when imperial japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Don't like it? Japanese civilians should have deposed their government and surrendered before we had to nuke 'em.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Aug 7, 2015

Kazzah
Jul 15, 2011

Formerly known as
Krazyface
Hair Elf
I don't understand how people are arguing, the thread title had "indefensible" in it, case closed.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Starshark posted:

Even if this is true - a point in dispute - do you think the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is justified because the other side did it first?

Justified? No. But in 1945, it was near to impossible to specifically pinpoint bomb military targets that were often tucked into the cities. Civilians were an unfortunate side effect.

Question: If civilians are working in a factory producing weapons, do they then become military value targets? Are their deaths now justified?

The problem is that Japan was already facing very strong bombing campaigns via firebombing due to the ineffectiveness of aerial bombardment with standard bombs and the particular weakness of Japan's industrial cities to firebombing. They were also being bombarded from the ocean by both the British and the Americans.

Ending Japan's ability to pursue the war further (which they maintained that they could do, even on the night of the Unconditional Surrender when an attempted coup tried to ensure the war would carry on) was paramount. That's how total war works.

Chomskyan posted:

Do you believe there's no point to imposing moral conventions on war? That seems to be the implication in your last post.

You are implying that the entire goal of strategic bombing was to specifically target the civilian populous.

The implication is that in a total war, there are likely to be civilian casualties. Should they be avoided where possible? Yes. But will they likely happen in the due course of destroying the enemies ability to carry out their war goals? Very likely, yes.

khwarezm
Oct 26, 2010

Deal with it.

CommieGIR posted:

What? They bombed a city in the middle of a war?! SHOCKING!


This. Exactly.

I hate when people bring up "Oh, but Japan wanted to surrender..."

Yes, but they wanted to surrender on their terms. No dice. You start a full blown war of aggression and lose, you don't get to dictate the terms. That was the whole reason Japan appealed to the Soviets at the end of the war, hoping they could convince the Allies to let them surrender conditionally. No dice.

Allow me to dissent, one of the most important things for the Japanese was that the Emperor would be protected. In Japan of course the person of the emperor was extremely important from a cultural and religious viewpoint, at least at that moment in time, and I think that this was something that the Americans were a bit deaf to. There is an understandable argument that if the Americans had agreed to clauses protecting the emperor it would have resulted in Hirohito's questionable records and actions getting buried, or that it could have been exploited to extend to protect others in the Japanese High Command who were extremely guilty of leading the country down its path of madness.

As well as that there was an additional cultural factor about the integrity of the land of Japan itself, by WW2 Japanese nationalism put major emphasis on the idea that they had never been invaded or conquered by foreign powers, its one of the reasons that word 'Kamikaze' ended up entering English lexicon, while Shintoism, hugely important to Japanese Nationalism, puts great emphasis on the spiritual qualities of Japans natural surroundings, who knows, this might have made the Nuclear bombs that much more terrifying to your average Japanese person since it seemed to threaten the existence of the physical country itself in a way that armies and firebombs didn't.

Regardless the point I'm making was that, it probably would have been better if the Americans made some allowances with regards to the emperor and postwar occupation and let them be known, even if it meant some extremely unsavory activities would have to get a blind eye (which happened anyway since the Americans did not really do anything with Hirohito and let tons of war criminals off the hook), the whole 'Unconditional surrender' thing is cathartic against an enemy that attacks you out of nowhere but I think that Japanese fears about a post-war settlement that would destroy them and their culture was one of the reasons the whole thing dragged on so long and the American stubbornness on the unconditional surrender issue made the war drag on unnecessarily and resulted in many more deaths.

Of course, one of the other things that some of the Japanese higher-ups hoped for (with astonishing audacity) was that they could surrender and somehow maintain their Chinese Empire, when the Soviets ripped the heart out of that then it was truly clear that the war was a lost cause.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

khwarezm posted:

Allow me to dissent, one of the most important things for the Japanese was that the Emperor would be protected. In Japan of course the person of the emperor was extremely important from a cultural and religious viewpoint, at least at that moment in time, and I think that this was something that the Americans were a bit deaf to. There is an understandable argument that if the Americans had agreed to clauses protecting the emperor it would have resulted in Hirohito's questionable records and actions getting buried, or that it could have been exploited to extend to protect others in the Japanese High Command who were extremely guilty of leading the country down its path of madness.

As well as that there was an additional cultural factor about the integrity of the land of Japan itself, by WW2 Japanese nationalism put major emphasis on the idea that they had never been invaded or conquered by foreign powers, its one of the reasons that word 'Kamikaze' ended up entering English lexicon, while Shintoism, hugely important to Japanese Nationalism, puts great emphasis on the spiritual qualities of Japans natural surroundings, who knows, this might have made the Nuclear bombs that much more terrifying to your average Japanese person since it seemed to threaten the existence of the physical country itself in a way that armies and firebombs didn't.

Regardless the point I'm making was that, it probably would have been better if the Americans made some allowances with regards to the emperor and postwar occupation and let them be known, even if it meant some extremely unsavory activities would have to get a blind eye (which happened anyway since the Americans did not really do anything with Hirohito and let tons of war criminals off the hook), the whole 'Unconditional surrender' thing is cathartic against an enemy that attacks you out of nowhere but I think that Japanese fears about a post-war settlement that would destroy them and their culture was one of the reasons the whole thing dragged on so long and the American stubbornness on the unconditional surrender issue made the war drag on unnecessarily and resulted in many more deaths.

Of course, one of the other things that some of the Japanese higher-ups hoped for (with astonishing audacity) was that they could surrender and somehow maintain their Chinese Empire, when the Soviets ripped the heart out of that then it was truly clear that the war was a lost cause.

True, the Potsdam Declaration should have made mention of the Emperor and maintaining his position, as they had already come to the conclusion that the Emporer should remain in power but as a figurehead only.

Assepoester
Jul 18, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 11 years!
Melman v2

CommieGIR posted:

Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender.
Did Japan surrender unconditionally?

KaptainKrunk
Feb 6, 2006



The Emperor was central to the whole Meiji constitutional order. It wasn't just a religious or cultural thing.

Cardboard Box A posted:

Did Japan surrender unconditionally?

Unconditional surrender doesn't exist and Japan did not surrender unconditionally.

They surrendered under the condition that they would not be massacred, enslaved, slowly starved to death, raped, forcibly relocated, and pretty much any other bad thing a military can do to a defenseless population

KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Aug 7, 2015

KaptainKrunk
Feb 6, 2006


e:whoops

khwarezm
Oct 26, 2010

Deal with it.

KaptainKrunk posted:

The Emperor was central to the whole Meiji constitutional order. It wasn't just a religious or cultural thing.

So its even deeper then?

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Cardboard Box A posted:

Did Japan surrender unconditionally?

The maintaining of the Imperial Line was not a condition for surrender, but it was left vague.

So, as far as the terms for the surrender, yes. The Allies decided that the Emperor should be maintained to help keep the peace.

KaptainKrunk posted:

Unconditional surrender doesn't exist and Japan did not surrender unconditionally.

They surrendered under the condition that they would not be massacred, enslaved, slowly starved to death, raped, forcibly relocated, and pretty much any other bad thing a military can do to a defenseless population

So, what they did to everyone else and what we didn't do because we respected the Geneva Convention. Kinda tilting at windmills aren't you?

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

khwarezm posted:

Allow me to dissent, one of the most important things for the Japanese was that the Emperor would be protected. In Japan of course the person of the emperor was extremely important from a cultural and religious viewpoint, at least at that moment in time, and I think that this was something that the Americans were a bit deaf to. There is an understandable argument that if the Americans had agreed to clauses protecting the emperor it would have resulted in Hirohito's questionable records and actions getting buried, or that it could have been exploited to extend to protect others in the Japanese High Command who were extremely guilty of leading the country down its path of madness.

As well as that there was an additional cultural factor about the integrity of the land of Japan itself, by WW2 Japanese nationalism put major emphasis on the idea that they had never been invaded or conquered by foreign powers, its one of the reasons that word 'Kamikaze' ended up entering English lexicon, while Shintoism, hugely important to Japanese Nationalism, puts great emphasis on the spiritual qualities of Japans natural surroundings, who knows, this might have made the Nuclear bombs that much more terrifying to your average Japanese person since it seemed to threaten the existence of the physical country itself in a way that armies and firebombs didn't.

Regardless the point I'm making was that, it probably would have been better if the Americans made some allowances with regards to the emperor and postwar occupation and let them be known, even if it meant some extremely unsavory activities would have to get a blind eye (which happened anyway since the Americans did not really do anything with Hirohito and let tons of war criminals off the hook), the whole 'Unconditional surrender' thing is cathartic against an enemy that attacks you out of nowhere but I think that Japanese fears about a post-war settlement that would destroy them and their culture was one of the reasons the whole thing dragged on so long and the American stubbornness on the unconditional surrender issue made the war drag on unnecessarily and resulted in many more deaths.

Of course, one of the other things that some of the Japanese higher-ups hoped for (with astonishing audacity) was that they could surrender and somehow maintain their Chinese Empire, when the Soviets ripped the heart out of that then it was truly clear that the war was a lost cause.

Imagine you're the ranking Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Do you advocate for a conditional surrender and lose in a landslide, or do you authorize even more money for nuking Japan until Japan surrenders?

America, unlike the imperial japanese, was and still is a democracy, a democracy with legislative oversight of the military. No loving way Japan was getting out of bombing pearl harbor without getting themselves nuked; simply no way to win re-election.

Assepoester
Jul 18, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 11 years!
Melman v2

CommieGIR posted:

The maintaining of the Imperial Line was not a condition for surrender, but it was left vague.

So, as far as the terms for the surrender, yes. The Allies decided that the Emperor should be maintained to help keep the peace.
Did America seek to get rid of the emperor as a term of surrender before Hiroshima?

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich
A key point about unconditional surrender is that it kills revanchism dead. They surrendered unconditionally; no way they could have fought on. You attach conditions, and folks start thinking about the next round.

Cardboard Box A posted:

Did America seek to get rid of the emperor before Hiroshima?

We didn't give a poo poo. We wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally; gently caress which imperial japanese officials lived and died, so long as they surrendered we'd sort everything else out later.

khwarezm
Oct 26, 2010

Deal with it.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Imagine you're the ranking Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Do you advocate for a conditional surrender and lose in a landslide, or do you authorize even more money for nuking Japan until Japan surrenders?

America, unlike the imperial japanese, was and still is a democracy, a democracy with legislative oversight of the military. No loving way Japan was getting out of bombing pearl harbor without getting themselves nuked; simply no way to win re-election.

Um, I would have assumed that most Americans were more interested in their brothers, sons and husbands getting home as safely and early as possible rather than turning every square inch of Japan into Tartarus.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Cardboard Box A posted:

Did America seek to get rid of the emperor as a term of surrender before Hiroshima?

No, at Potsdam it was discussed and decided that the Emporer would be made a figurehead in a Constitutional Democracy, and for the time being subject to the order of the Supreme Allied Commander.

quote:

From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

I forget who, but I think the Soviets had argued for removing the Emperor, but the US and English were aware of his importance in the eyes of the country.

KaptainKrunk
Feb 6, 2006


Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available.

Really?

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

khwarezm posted:

Um, I would have assumed that most Americans were more interested in their brothers, sons and husbands getting home as early as possible rather than turning every square inch of Japan into Tartarus.

You don't understand America one bit, you yellow-bellied coward. You're thinking like a Japanese general, and not an American Senator.

Americans wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally, and we were willing to risk death to achieve that. You don't bomb Pearl Harbour then get to play the boo-hoo 'your loved ones are at risk' card, Tokyo Rose.

KaptainKrunk posted:

Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available.

Really?

Until their country surrenders unconditionally, their lives are worth less than the men and women of the allied armed forces. If folks in Japan didn't want to be bombed, they shouldn't have allowed Pearl Harbour.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

KaptainKrunk posted:

Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available.

Really?

You are oversimplifying it and strawmanning. C'mon now.

  • Locked thread