Time to bomb Iran??

[J70]

The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week

So the end justified the means then J70??

I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history. 

Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?

And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?

And hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had to died for every inch of Japan's home island?

Is that a question directed at me?

[deiseach]

Joe Lee (that man again) did an analysis in his Tribune column a while back of how hyperinflation affected the various conjectures regarding Allied loss of life should they have to invade Japan. At first, figures were in the thousands, then the tens of thousands, then hundreds, and now seems to have settled - completely independent of any coherent analyisis - in the millions.

The Americans dropped the bomb to prevent Uncle Joe from pinching Japan from under their noses. Loss of life was secondary to needs of the post-Yalta settlement.

[J70]

Okinawa is less than 500 square miles in size. During the 3 month fight there in 1945, the Allies lost 13,000 dead, the Japanese 70,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed. A land invasion of Japan beginning three months later therefore would obviously be relatively bloodless.

[deiseach]

Okinawa is less than 500 square miles in size. During the 3 month fight there in 1945, the Allies lost 13,000 dead, the Japanese 70,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed. A land invasion of Japan beginning three months later therefore would obviously be relatively bloodless.

So at 26 deaths per square mile, with the area of Japan being about 142,000 square miles, the Allies would have had to sacrifice nearly six million men to conquer Japan. That is the logic of your post, right?

[J70]

Okinawa is less than 500 square miles in size. During the 3 month fight there in 1945, the Allies lost 13,000 dead, the Japanese 70,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed. A land invasion of Japan beginning three months later therefore would obviously be relatively bloodless.

So at 26 deaths per square mile, with the area of Japan being about 142,000 square miles, the Allies would have had to sacrifice nearly six million men to conquer Japan. That is the logic of your post, right?

No, I'm not making a direct extrapolation. I'm merely pointing out that it would have been extremely costly in terms of lives lost, judging by what took place in the weeks leading up to Hiroshima, and that was a primary factor in the decision to resort to atomic weapons. You're the one who seems to be implying that the potential cost in Allied or Japanese lives was exaggerated or at most of secondary importance.

[deiseach]

I have no doubt it was of secondary importance. The primary motivation was to prevent Japan falling into Soviet hands. This goal could have been achieved through diplomacy, i.e. dropping the unconditional surrender condition and agreeing to overlook Japan's more egregious crimes and criminals in the subsequent settlement (something they did anyway, hanging Tojo while letting Hirohito off the hook).

Let me put it this way. Had Japan acquired and used the atomic bomb, do you think a defence of "we were only trying to save lives, m'lud" would have been accepted at a war crimes tribunal?

[J70]

I have no doubt it was of secondary importance. The primary motivation was to prevent Japan falling into Soviet hands. This goal could have been achieved through diplomacy, i.e. dropping the unconditional surrender condition and agreeing to overlook Japan's more egregious crimes and criminals in the subsequent settlement (something they did anyway, hanging Tojo while letting Hirohito off the hook).

Let me put it this way. Had Japan acquired and used the atomic bomb, do you think a defence of "we were only trying to save lives, m'lud" would have been accepted at a war crimes tribunal?

Not in a war in which they were the aggressors and were intent on continuing a fight in which they had shown no concern for the lives of those they conquered or captured.

I'm not sure where you get your certainty from, given that people have been arguing this back and forth for decades, but assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, do you think the Japanese would have been better off if the Allies hadn't dropped the bombs and Soviets had conquered Japan?

[deiseach]

Not in a war in which they were the aggressors and were intent on continuing a fight in which they had shown no concern for the lives of those they conquered or captured.

By that logic, the current leaders of the United States should be before a war crimes tribunal

I'm not sure where you get your certainty from, given that people have been arguing this back and forth for decades, but assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, do you think the Japanese would have been better off if the Allies hadn't dropped the bombs and Soviets had conquered Japan?

All other things being equal, the Japanese were better off. But, as I explained in my earlier post, all other things were not equal. They had the diplomacy option, but the Allies had hoisted themselves on the petard of unconditional surrender, a canard as ridiculous then as it was when John Major was blithering on about not negotiating with terrorists while, uh, negotiating with terrorists. The prosperous, democratic(ish) polity that emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War in Japan showed the character of the country was not fixed in stone, yet the Allies persisted in clinging to the kind of rhetoric that belonged in an age when folk believed in the divine right of kings.

[J70]

Not in a war in which they were the aggressors and were intent on continuing a fight in which they had shown no concern for the lives of those they conquered or captured.

By that logic, the current leaders of the United States should be before a war crimes tribunal

Perhaps. My point still stands though!

I'm not sure where you get your certainty from, given that people have been arguing this back and forth for decades, but assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, do you think the Japanese would have been better off if the Allies hadn't dropped the bombs and Soviets had conquered Japan?

All other things being equal, the Japanese were better off. But, as I explained in my earlier post, all other things were not equal. They had the diplomacy option, but the Allies had hoisted themselves on the petard of unconditional surrender, a canard as ridiculous then as it was when John Major was blithering on about not negotiating with terrorists while, uh, negotiating with terrorists. The prosperous, democratic(ish) polity that emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War in Japan showed the character of the country was not fixed in stone, yet the Allies persisted in clinging to the kind of rhetoric that belonged in an age when folk believed in the divine right of kings.

Assuming the Japanese would have quickly surrendered all of their remaining conquests, stood down the military leadership and acceded to the occupation provided the emperor was left in place.