Enola Gay display angers victims

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#16

Post by michael mills » 18 Dec 2003, 11:28

Some of the earlier posts on this topic miss the point.

The Japanese do not have a culture of complaint; they do not bear grudges against former enemies, and do not demonise them.

In Japan, at the Hiroshima memorial and others, you will not find any rancour against the United States, no blame, no accusations of criminality. The Japanese, being essentially a fatalistic people, regard the casualties of the nuclear and other air attacks in much the same way as they regard the comparable casualties of the great Kantoo earthquake of the 1920s; they were victims of a great disaster caused by fate, and the survivors just get on with their lives.

One of the refreshing things about the Hiroshima memorial is that there is no hint of whining or complaining, no demonising of the enemy who dropped the bomb. What a refreshing change from the memorials put up by Jews, Poles, Russians and similar peoples, where the underlying theme is a whinge about the evil Nazis/Germans/Russians/whoever who did this to us!

The main theme of the Hiroshima Memorial is an anti-war message. War, not an enemy, is seen as the cause of the disaster, and the moral is that there must never be war again. The message is quite consistent with the perennially leftist outlook of the Hiroshima city administration which maintains the Memorial.

A similar lack of rancour is typical of the Yasukuni Shrine, which most definitely is not a leftist, anti-military institution. Its aim is to honour those who died while serving Japan in a military capacity, including soldiers and officials executed by the enemy after suffering defeat. However, there is no railing against the former enemies of Japan, no accusations that those enemies had somehow done Japan a wrong. There is simply an acceptance of war, whether resulting in victory or defeat, and of death in war, as something ordained by fate.

In the Japanese philosophy of life, if fate decrees that you lose a war and your conquerors then execute you, it must simply be accepted. It is not regarded as shameful, as a punishment, or having moral significance. In like measure, if you kill your enemies in war, that is also fate, and has no moral significance. For Japanese, an enemy that they happen to be fighting is not an emanation of evil, but simply an opponent that has to be dealt with.

That is why all the complaints that the Japanese disregard the suffering they imposed on other peoples. The Japanese philosophy of life is that they do not complain about their misfortunes but simply accept them; in fact they regard it as shameful to use their own suffering as a means of gaining sympathy from others, or to try to screw money out of them. The Japanese expect their former enemies to take the same fatalistic approach, and are rather puzzled when they do not. How different the Japanese are from those wailing Jews and Poles, how nobly stoic.

In a previous message on this thread, a parallel was drawn between the bombing of Pearl Harbour and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima. In fact the two instances are quite dissimilar. The bombing of Pearl Harbour was clearly an attack on a military target with the aim of destroying as much of the enemies war-making materiel as possible, not to kill as many people as possible.

By contrast, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was clearly aimed at the civilian population of the city, and the goal was to kill as many of the city's population as possible, in what was essentially an experiment in a new method of mass-killing.

User avatar
hisashi
Member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 15:44
Location: Tokyo,Japan
Contact:

#17

Post by hisashi » 18 Dec 2003, 14:52

Thank you deeply for your calmness in judging on the behaviors of Japaneses.
I dare say, Japan is not a unity. We have all; some Japaneses certainly hate the United States even today because their relative lost their lives by air raid or torpedoes. Some have stubborn racism against neighboring Asian people, typically against Chineses and Koreans. Some are emotionally denying to talk about any negative acts of military and civillians in the past (731 unit etc.).
In my previous posting I suggested Japaneses are not very objective in dealing with historical facts. It also applies to Japanese anti-militarism and pro-militarism (usually also pro-racism and anti-America) groups; many groups ignore and accept facts easily on prejudices. It is very rare, but I experienced once that a member of a group made a posting to BBS in my Japanese site advertising a book. The book clearly asserted 'It happened nothing in Nanking'. I immediately deleted this message and instead I posted a message 'I deleted a message that I don't like. My apologies in advance for your displeasure if you would find sabotages on this board'. Nothing happened, thank Japanese gods and goddesses, but we live worrying about dragons lurking from both sides in Japan.
Influenced by the occurrence of Korean War, eventually Allied GHQ loosened pursuit to old system of Japan in exchange for cooperation (they even mobilized some mine-sweeper boats to Korean shore and one Japanese was killed in action). It greatly helped lessening the hate to Americans, but careful examination of our historical path was left halfway.


User avatar
Windward
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 30 Jul 2003, 15:41
Location: Pechinum
Contact:

#18

Post by Windward » 18 Dec 2003, 16:26

michael mills wrote:Some of the earlier posts on this topic miss the point.
You must meant my posts. :) I just want to say a neutral country guy could not feel the feeling Chinese and other victims of WW2 Japan war crimes have, and he has not right to say "Japan has witnessed the cowering of Germany over the issue of warcrimes etc" and "is not going to let it happen to her" things blah blah. German did the right things and won respect. My second post try to explain the feeling I have with Japanese, after ten years of communicating with my Chinese and Japanese friends, and try to explain why Hiroshima Memorial never mention Nanking things, Bataan march or 731 unit, from my opinion, a Chinese's opinion, though my thought may be wrong. And you said well about the character of Hiroshima Memorial. It's anti-war. But never forget who rise the war firstly.

And I don't agree with your comparison between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. Japan also had war crimes against people, Chinese people and western people, as Dutch in East Indo Islands, British in Shanghai and Hongkong, and American in Philippines. And Hiroshima was not a pure civilian city. The Second General Headquarters (under the command of Marshal Shunroku Hata) was in Hiroshima (there were only two GHQs in mainland Japan, the 1st GHQ was in Tokyo, so do you oppose US air raids over Tokyo too?), and the headquarters of the Chugoku District Governor-General was also there. Hiroshima-Ujina harbor was one of the most important depart ports for Japanese expeditionary forces, and had many war industry and ammo factories. I have no animus with present Japanses, and I'm sorry for those women and children died in Hiroshima, and I must tell you that sometimes you hide some facts behind you, to prove your opinion as something like "the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was clearly aimed at the civilian population of the city" or "and the goal was to kill as many of the city's population as possible". You must be a pacifist and humanist, too mercy and too lenient to understand why so many heads of your Aussie POWs were cutted by Japanese officers. War means killing. Who rise the war and kill enemy civilians jollily must bear enemy's revenge. It's rule and has no exception.
:)

regards.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

#19

Post by tonyh » 18 Dec 2003, 16:48

Windward wrote:Japan is too far from you. Try to image: British text books and newspapers only talk about IRA terror attacks, say Great Britain is an innocent victim of Irish terrorists, said nothing about its own behaviour in Ireland and Ulster as Cromwell's conquest, Irish Famine or bloody conflict in Northern Ireland. Would you feel it's fair and accessible, and acceptable?
I went to school in Derbyshire for a time when I was younger in the 80's. My cousins went to school in England all their (school) lives. There is nothing said in negativity about the excesses of the British Empire and certainly nothing at all about the Irish Famine or activities of the British Army in Ireland. I learned that when my family moved back to Ireland, and no I don't believe they should be banging their heads about it.

Besides, for a long time, the British press did in fact mention only the IRA killings, while simultainiously neglecting to report the various Loyalist actions. There was even a ban on Gerry Adams and Sein Fein members from speaking, section 42. The situation has vastly improved, but I still don't advocate the educational system of any Country blasting a guilty past into their Children.

Tony

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#20

Post by michael mills » 19 Dec 2003, 05:59

Windward wrote:
You must meant my posts.
I was not referring to your posts in particular. I was referring to the general tone of a number of posts, including some of the points made in yours, which took the line that Japanese had no right to complain about the omission from the Enola Gay exhibition of any mention of the enormous casualties caused by the one bomb dropped by that aircraft, because of the huge numbers of civilian deaths caused by Japanese forces.

I think that that line would be reasonable if the general attitude of the Japanese people were one of complaint about what they suffered in the war, if their attitude were one of accusing their former enemies of committing crimes against the Japanese people.

For example, if the Japanese complaining about the Enola Gay exhibition were demanding that a placard be put up saying that the dropping of the atomic bomb and the resulting tens of thousands of deaths was a massive crime comitted by the United States, then it would be reasonable to answer with a reference to Japanese atrocities.

If the Hiroshima Memorial accused the United States of criminality, and called the airmen who flew the aircraft "soldiers of the devil" and "criminal barbarians", then it would be reasonable to ask why the Memorial makes no reference to criminal actions by Japanese forces.

However, the Japanese are not making any accusations, they are not whining. The Hiroshima Memorial depicts the great suffering caused by the nuclear attack on that city, but does not blame the United States for it; it sees it as an outcome of war, which brings suffering to all sides.

Likewise, those protesting about the Enola Gay exhibition are not demanding an abject apology from the United States, an admission of guilt. What they are saying is that a sign stating only that this particular aircraft dropped the atomic bomb, without any reference to the huge casualties caused thereby, is a form of concealment of a crucila historical fact.

That is why I admire the Japanese attitude. They remember what they suffered, and are determined to make sure that such suffering never happens again; but they do not waste their time making accusations against former enemies or demanding meaningless acts of contrition.

Another fact is that the Japanese do not take a position of moral condemnation toward other peoples, although, like all humans, they are not free of prejudice. By contrast, I am sure you are well aware, Windward, that the Chinese commonly refer to the Japanese as "devils", "soldiers of the devil", and "barbarians". I am sure that you are aware of the Chinese tradition that the Japanese people are descended from miscegenation between criminals exiled from China to the Japanese islands and local monkeys; that is why the Chinese call Japanese "yellow monkeys".

As for the experimental nature of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is a proved fact that the United States Government ordered that a number of Japanese cities be spared from conventional bombing and left intact, so that the full effect of a single nuclear explosion could be analysed. One of the cities in the list was Kyooto, the traditional capital, but because of its cultural significance it was decided to spare it and Hiroshima was selected instead. Thus the bombing of Hiroshima had nothing whatever to do with any military significance that it had; it was one of the cities preserved for experimental nuclear attack, was not originally selected for the actual attack, but was substituted for Kyooto at the last minute.

I also believe that the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which actually caused many more casualties that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, went far beyond what was required for military purposes. The orders issued for the fire-bombing by General Curtis LeMay show that the civilian population was deliberately targeted, with the aim of setting the whole city on fire and destroying as much civilian housing as possible.

As for beheadings carried out by Japanese forces, I am sure you are aware that summary execution by beheading was also a common Chinese practice. I have seen photos of Chinese Communists being publicy beheaded in the streets of Shanghai by soldiers of Jiang Zhongzheng in 1927. I am sure that in the period from 1911 to 1945, far more Chinese were killed by other Chinese than were killed by Japanese.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#21

Post by Peter H » 19 Dec 2003, 07:42

The 160 minute confessional documentary Japanese Devils presented an ongoing rural orgy of murder and rape by Japanese forces when first presented in 2001.

Even then it is open to criticism about its authenticity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/jou ... 95,00.html

User avatar
Windward
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 30 Jul 2003, 15:41
Location: Pechinum
Contact:

#22

Post by Windward » 19 Dec 2003, 09:15

As for beheadings carried out by Japanese forces, I am sure you are aware that summary execution by beheading was also a common Chinese practice
Yes, but it was not a common practice with enemy POW who should be protected by the Geneva Pact. Please don't mix communist criminals up with foreign POW.
I am sure that you are aware of the Chinese tradition that the Japanese people are descended from miscegenation between criminals exiled from China to the Japanese islands and local monkeys; that is why the Chinese call Japanese "yellow monkeys".
Chinese usually call Japanese invaders "Wo Kou" from 16th century, which means "dwarfish bandits", or call them "Xiao Ri Ben" (tiny Japanese, dwarfish Japanese), "Ri Ben Gui Zi" (Japanese Devil, but "gui zi" has more disdainful imply in Chinese, compared with the evil imply of English word "devil") in the Sino-Japanese War. But no one call them "yellow monkeys". I think you must meant the words of Tsar Nicloas II or Kaiser Wilhelm II for the yellow monkey thing. And I must point out that only very few radical young Chinese nationalists and racists (kinda funny) cry something like "Japanese are descended from miscegenation between criminals and local monkeys" in chatrooms and forums. And I had never heard such words from my kins, friends, classmates and colleagues. On the contrary, much more Chinese believe that Japanese are descendant of 3000 boys and girls who were sent oversea by Qin Shi Huang (259 BC ~ 210 BC, the first emperor of unitive China) to find elixir from the immortals, those kids were led by sorcerer Xu Fu (Chinese pronunciation) or Jyou Fuku (Japanese pronunciation).

http://www2.saganet.ne.jp/niesu/zyofuku/xufu.htm

regards

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#23

Post by Takao » 21 Dec 2003, 23:38

My two cents,

I side with the Smithsonian on this one. I have been to the Air and Space museum, as well as, the old Garber facility many times. Their displays focus on the technical aspects of an aircraft. They provide an informed rather than opinionated display of artifacts. Thus I hold them in very high regard. I don’t recall any stats by the ME-262 showing how many planes it shot down or how many airmen it killed, nor was there anything for the Japanese Zero showing how many allied airmen it killed or how many seamen lost their lives to kamikazes, nor do I remember seeing casualty figures by the front fuselage of “Flak Bait”, a medium bomber that flew 50+ missions – surely it killed some civilians.

That being said, would the inclusion of casualty figures add anything to the display. IMHO, no it would not. The number of dead is not what is important, after all that number varies from source to source and if the bomb had been dropped on another city(larger or smaller) the resulting deaths could vary greatly, what is important to remember is “One bomb destroyed one city”. Would including photos serve a purpose. Again, I don’t think so. I have seen pictures of destroyed German cities and Japanese cities and most look very similar to what I have seen of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Everything has been laid waste. The difference is that the other cities were attacked by hundreds of bombers, where as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked by only one (or three if you prefer; the others being the instrument plane and the photo reconnaissance plane). Would it serve to honor the dead by including these casualty figures. For me, the answer is “No”. How do you honor someone by lumping them together in one large group. Maybe it is my mindset, but you honor the individual by remembering the individual and not by adding them to some nameless, faceless mass

Now, why all the fuss about displaying the “Enola Gay”? This plane has been languishing, in pieces, for years at the Paul Garber facility and nobody cared. But, now that the plane has been fully restored, some folks have gotten mighty upset. Maybe, this is because they just want to see their names in the paper or maybe, they have a legitimate gripe. But, it does give me pause to stop and think. What about “Bock’s Car”, the B-29 that dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki? Where are all the folks protesting the display of that? I don’t recall ever hearing about any protests over that display. I guess very few realize that the plane still exists or maybe, they don’t know where it’s located. It is on display at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and has been there since 1961. Since, I was only born in 1971, I must have missed the protests over that one. Could someone please enlighten me if there were any notable protests when “Bock’s Car” went on display.


Michael Mills,
As for the experimental nature of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is a proved fact that the United States Government ordered that a number of Japanese cities be spared from conventional bombing and left intact, so that the full effect of a single nuclear explosion could be analysed. One of the cities in the list was Kyooto, the traditional capital, but because of its cultural significance it was decided to spare it and Hiroshima was selected instead. Thus the bombing of Hiroshima had nothing whatever to do with any military significance that it had; it was one of the cities preserved for experimental nuclear attack, was not originally selected for the actual attack, but was substituted for Kyooto at the last minute.
While I do not dispute that the selected cities were left untouched to gauge the power of the atomic bomb, I must disagree with your opinion that the bombing of Hiroshima was purely experimental in nature. It is true that four cities were set aside for as targets for the atomic bomb, but the reason these cities were chosen in the first place is because of the effect a bombing attack would have on the Japanese war effort. Kyoto was chosen because the targeting committee believed that Kyoto had the largest intelligentsia population of all Japanese cities, and that they, being smarter than the rest, would be more capable in convincing Tokyo of what had actually happened and thus hasten the end of the war. Also, it was believed that Kyoto because of it's size must of had a good deal of war work going on within it's city limits. However, when US Secretary of War Henry Stimson said that Kyoto was not to be the target of the atom bomb, Nagasaki was chosen to be the replacement city. Hiroshima had always been considered a target city. Kyoto had occupied the place of “most favored target”, but with Kyoto off limits, Hiroshima was then selected as “most favored target”. Now, as other posters have said Hiroshima was a legitimate military target: it had a major naval base, GHQ for southern Japan, 30+ major military installations manned by some 40,000 troops, as well as several heavy industries. But, it also had another mark against it. It was the only one of the four cities with no reported POW camps.

I also believe that the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which actually caused many more casualties that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, went far beyond what was required for military purposes. The orders issued for the fire-bombing by General Curtis LeMay show that the civilian population was deliberately targeted, with the aim of setting the whole city on fire and destroying as much civilian housing as possible.
As for the incendiary raids on Japan, this was not General Curtis Lemay’s unique idea. The US had been studying how best to destroy Japanese cities since 1943. General Lemay’s predecessor, General Hansell had been instructed to attempt such area attacks, but being a firm believer in high altitude precision bombing, he resisted. With Hansell’s precision bombing campaign well under way, but bearing little fruit, he was replaced by General Lemay. Lemay was more open to improving the effectivness of his command, especially after limited fire raids proved to be much more effective than the high altitude bombing. Now, the fire raids on Japan can be classified as strictly an informed change in tactics that allowed for improved usage of the B-29s. When the B-29s first arrived in the Pacific, and for sometime after, they were being used in much the same way as the B-17s were against Germany. High altitude precision bombing, this decision was made because the US had greatly over-estimated Japan’s air defenses, but this did not work out as the US had planned. The bombers were using too much fuel - hence the addition of “Tokyo tanks” in one of the B-29 bomb bays, the engine life span was much less than was expected – because of long climbs to altitude and extended flight time, and the unpredictable weather over Japan made accurate bombing from 30,000 feet next to impossible – IIRC, first known contact with the “Jet Stream”. Depending on the position of the IP, a bomber’s ground speed could be as low as 50 mph or increased to 500+mph. The Norden bombsight could not compensate for these conditions. Once Japan’s air defenses were correctly assessed, and Lemay made his decision for low altitude attacks (5000 feet), everything fell into place. With low level attacks: engine lifespans were greatly increased, fuel economy improved so much that B-29s could now carry full bomb loads - and no “Tokyo tanks” - to Japan, and the bombing accuracy was also much improved.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#24

Post by michael mills » 22 Dec 2003, 12:12

Takao wrote:
While I do not dispute that the selected cities were left untouched to gauge the power of the atomic bomb, I must disagree with your opinion that the bombing of Hiroshima was purely experimental in nature. It is true that four cities were set aside for as targets for the atomic bomb, but the reason these cities were chosen in the first place is because of the effect a bombing attack would have on the Japanese war effort. Kyoto was chosen because the targeting committee believed that Kyoto had the largest intelligentsia population of all Japanese cities, and that they, being smarter than the rest, would be more capable in convincing Tokyo of what had actually happened and thus hasten the end of the war. Also, it was believed that Kyoto because of it's size must of had a good deal of war work going on within it's city limits. However, when US Secretary of War Henry Stimson said that Kyoto was not to be the target of the atom bomb, Nagasaki was chosen to be the replacement city. Hiroshima had always been considered a target city. Kyoto had occupied the place of “most favored target”, but with Kyoto off limits, Hiroshima was then selected as “most favored target”. Now, as other posters have said Hiroshima was a legitimate military target: it had a major naval base, GHQ for southern Japan, 30+ major military installations manned by some 40,000 troops, as well as several heavy industries. But, it also had another mark against it. It was the only one of the four cities with no reported POW camps.

Takao is putting forward here the traditional justification for the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namely that they were the only way to bring the war with Japan to an end.

However, by August 1945, Japan was no longer able to wage war, since its war-fighting capacity had been destroyed by air and sea attack on its territory and by the total cutting of its supply lines. Even its lines of communication to Korea and China were completely cut, since United States naval vessels could cruies around the coast at will.

Japan's navy and air force were completely out of action, either through destruction or lack of fuel. It war industries had been totally destroyed, so that it could no longer manufacture weapons and munitions, or vehicles. In preparation for the expected invasion, the Japanese population was being armed with sharpened bamboo poles; so much for the claimed mass resistance taking tens of thousands of Allied lives.

Furthermore, Japan's will to resist was essentially at an end. That is shown by the almost instantaneous collapse of the Kantoo Army in Manchuria (apart from a few fanatical but meaningless holdouts) when the Soviet Army invaded on 8 August (ie three months to the day after the surrender in Europe, the date on which the Soviet Union had promised at Yalta to join the war against Japan).

Of course there were Japanese forces spread out over a wide area, in Thailand, Malaya, Indochina, most of the Netherlands East Indies, a few scattered islands, and of course in a large area of China, but those forces were totally cut off from the homeland and their sources of supply, and their ability to go on fighting was severely limited.

There was no need to invade Japan to win the war against it. Nor was there any need to deliberately kill scores of thousands of civilians in the two nuclear attacks. Japan could simply have been blockaded until it surrendered or collapsed internally. In like manner, the Japanese forces outside the homeland could simply have been blockaded until they surrendered or dissolved.

The main factor making such a strategy unattractive to the Allies was the Soviet factor. From their point of view, there was the danger that, while they were blockading Japan and waiting for it to surrender, the Soviet forces would advance further into China, helping to bring the Communists to power there and thereby excluding the United States, and might even invade and capture large parts of Japanese territory before the United States could enter.

That is the sole reason why the United States required an immediate surrender to it from Japan; that would enable it to occupy Japan before the Soviet Union.

There were two reasons why the nuclear attacks were carried out:

(1) To experiment with the new weapon, to see how much of a city could be destroyed by one bomb, and how many people could be killed at one stroke; and

(2) As a warning to the Soviet Union that the United States possessed a weapon that could be used against it if it attempted to challenge the United States in its post-war sphere of dominion.

As for Hiroshima being a legitimate military target, it would be more correct to say that there were legitimate military targets within and around the city. Given that Japan's air defences were by now non-existent, and there was no danger from defending forces, those legitimate military targets could quite easily have been attacked by precision bombing. There was simply no need to destroy the whole city and scores of thousands of civilians, men, women and children.

Takao is to be thanked for the detailed explanation of the technical reasons for the particular bombing strategy adopted against Japanese cities. However, that does not explain why it was necessary to attack the civilian population en masse by burning down whole cities (in a single fire-bombing raid on Tokyo, more persons were killed than in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima, and twice as many as all the American citizens killed during the whole war) rather than attacking the military targets, which would have been relatively easy given the absence of any air defence.

User avatar
Windward
Member
Posts: 1810
Joined: 30 Jul 2003, 15:41
Location: Pechinum
Contact:

#25

Post by Windward » 23 Dec 2003, 13:32

There was no need to invade Japan to win the war against it. Nor was there any need to deliberately kill scores of thousands of civilians in the two nuclear attacks. Japan could simply have been blockaded until it surrendered or collapsed internally.
Blockade Japan, blockade Germany, they'll surrender, blah blah. You are an idealist. :wink:

Japanese people would suffer more under allied blockade. If this really happened, maybe you would say "there was no need to blockade Japan and starve millions of Japanese to death to win the war". Anyway the evil allied forces always did the wrong thing in order to murder innocent axis angels as more as possible. But I love your idea. I'm fan of capital ships, and US Navy would complete the Iowa class, Alaska class and Montana class if the war lasted longer. :lol:
Last edited by Windward on 24 Dec 2003, 04:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jack Nisley
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 03:37
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

#26

Post by Jack Nisley » 23 Dec 2003, 20:03

Let's say you are a war planner in the Pentagon in July 1945, responsible for making a recommendation to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and President on strategy for forcing Japnas surrender. (picked JCS because they were responsible for Pacific Theater strategy within the Combined Chiefs of Staff system - US and UK/Commonwealth).

What do you know?

Japan is tightly controlled by the military fanatics who are determined to resist to the end, no matter what the consequences to the Japanese people. There may be a peace party in Japan, but it does not have enough influence to overrule the military.

Japan is shifting as many troops as possible from mainland Asia to Japan to defend the homeland. They are building up new forces and frantically building both sophisticated and primitive weapons to arm these forces. You probably know that Japan has chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs underway. The time Japan has, the more (and deadlier) weapons she can produce.

Japanese troops occupy much of South East Asia and China. They are trying to become self sufficient because they are cut off from Japanese industry and supplies. You can assume they will provide for themselves at the expense of the local populations (i.e. the Japanese Army will eat and the locals will starve) and that they will eliminate Allied POWs and civilian internees as a burden on limited resources.

Experience in Europe has shown that the Soviets are not really our friends. Anything you can recommend that will limit their presence in postwar Asia will be for the better.

Options:

Invade: This will require larger forces to accomplish than are currently in the Pacific Theater. A million men and millions of tons of supplies will need to be redeployed from Europe. Late war experience is that US casualties in men (estimate 500,000 to 1,000,000) and ships will be high. We will have to completely destroy the Japanese armed forces and will inflict very heavy casulties on the civilian population either by accident or because of paramilitary resistence. If we invade, allied POWs and civilian internees will probably be killed, both in Japan and SEA. Soviet assistance may be required or may be forthcoming even if we don't desire it.

Blockade: We have cut off shipping to SEA and are attacking shipping lanes in the Sea of Japan from Korea and Manchuria with submarines, aircraft, and a mining campaign. Because Japan needs outside food supplies and raw materials to survive, this blockade, together with air attacks on industry and urban areas, will defeat Japan at some future date unknown. POWs and internees will be at risk during this campaign. Japanese military units bypassed on islands and in New Guinea are still holding out after heavy losses to disease and starvation. This campaign will probably result in the death of at least 50% of the Japanses people and heavy loss of life in the civilian populations in SEA/China under Japanese control.

Drop the Bomb: Although it is risky, the use of a weapon which can completely destroy a city at a single blow may provide the physcological shock to get the Japanese to surrender. If it works, this eliminates US casualties and minimizes Japanese and civilian casualties throughout Asia.

Which option do you recommend?

Jack Nisley

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

#27

Post by Takao » 24 Dec 2003, 08:52

@Michael Mills
Takao is putting forward here the traditional justification for the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namely that they were the only way to bring the war with Japan to an end.
I put forward nothing other than the reasons for why Kyoto and Hiroshima were targets for the atom bomb. Depending upon your tradition the justification that I usually hear is that the atom bombs were the quickest, easiest, and least costly (in terms of American lives) way to end the war.

But, no the atomic bombs were not the only way to end the war. The USAAF was arguing for continued bombing Japan. They expected to run out of targets sometime in September, 1945. The USN was arguing for a blockade of Japan, even though such a blockade, had more or less, begun in March, 1945. The US Army was arguing that invasion was the only way to defeat the Japanese, albeit with a tremendous cost in American lives. However, the one that probably would have ended the war much earlier was one put forward by the US State Department in mid-1945. They said that if Japan was allowed to keep the Emperor, then the Japanese would most likely surrender. However, no one of any power listened to them. After all, it would seem as if the US was going back on it’s “Unconditional Surrender” decree.
Japan's navy and air force were completely out of action, either through destruction or lack of fuel. It war industries had been totally destroyed, so that it could no longer manufacture weapons and munitions, or vehicles. In preparation for the expected invasion, the Japanese population was being armed with sharpened bamboo poles; so much for the claimed mass resistance taking tens of thousands of Allied lives.
Thank you for admitting that the fire raids, while abhorrent, were also very effective. You neglect to mention the number of bamboo spears as 28 million (estimated number of local volunteers) as well as 2.3 million combat troops already in the home islands, 1.1 million naval personnel, 10,000+ aircraft (mostly designated for the kamikaze role), 3,000+ Special Attack craft( of dubious attack value against warship, but a threat to the transports), and not to mention an unknown number of artillery and tanks.
Furthermore, Japan's will to resist was essentially at an end. That is shown by the almost instantaneous collapse of the Kantoo Army in Manchuria (apart from a few fanatical but meaningless holdouts) when the Soviet Army invaded on 8 August (ie three months to the day after the surrender in Europe, the date on which the Soviet Union had promised at Yalta to join the war against Japan).
Japan’s Kwantung Army was defeated for many reasons, however that it’s will to resist was at an end is not one of them. Confusion among the commanders of the Kwantung Army, and superior Soviet tactics, strategy, & numbers won the day. The Soviets attacked the Kwantung Army from multiple directions thus preventing the Japanese from forming a solid defensive line. Soviet troops outnumber the Japanese force by 500,000. The Soviets had a greater ratio of artillery (5 to 1), tanks (5 to 1), and aircraft (2 to 1). The Japanese Kwantung Army was never expected to hold the Manchurian frontier, it received orders on August 9, 1945 , tasking it ‘to defend the Japanese territory of Korea.’ Confusion about a planned Japanese attack using forces under General Ushiroku, that was approved and the later rescinded by General Yamada, commander of the Kwantung Army, did not help matters any. Not to mention the speed of the Soviet advance was much greater than the Japanese had expected. The fighting was bitter, but the conclusion of the Soviet attack was never in doubt.
There was no need to invade Japan to win the war against it. Nor was there any need to deliberately kill scores of thousands of civilians in the two nuclear attacks. Japan could simply have been blockaded until it surrendered or collapsed internally. In like manner, the Japanese forces outside the homeland could simply have been blockaded until they surrendered or dissolved.
As I stated earlier Japan had been under a literal blockade starting in March 1945. Per orders from Admiral Nimitz, General Lemay used 313th Wing to lay mines in the coastal areas and ports of Japan, this was known as Operation Starvation. Between USN submarines, carrier aircraft, and the mines Japan was cut off from her outlying natural resource supply centers.
As for Hiroshima being a legitimate military target, it would be more correct to say that there were legitimate military targets within and around the city. Given that Japan's air defences were by now non-existent, and there was no danger from defending forces, those legitimate military targets could quite easily have been attacked by precision bombing. There was simply no need to destroy the whole city and scores of thousands of civilians, men, women and children.
As I have said before, precision bombing – wasn’t. As for Japan’s air defenses, it would be more proper to say they were inadequate. The crewmen of B-24s “Lonesome Lady” and “Taloa” found out how non-existent these air defenses were. They were being held prisoner in Hiroshima Castle the morning of August 6, 1945. Both planes having been downed several days prior to the atomic bomb drop.

Now you wish another explanation for the fire raids? Why? You provided one yourself…
It war industries had been totally destroyed, so that it could no longer manufacture weapons and munitions, or vehicles.
With their factories nothing but charred foundations, their workers either dead or, after losing their homes, scattered to the four winds. Japan could produce very little.

But I will humor you with another one. During one of the fire raids on Tokyo, some 22 targets designated for precision strikes were destroyed. So what was accomplished in 1 raid would have taken, at best, 22 daylight precision raids to destroy. Now given that the average loss rate for daylight precision raids was 4 – 5 B-29s per raid. You can estimate that roughly 88 – 110 planes might be lost, along with their 968 – 1210 crewmen (granted not all of the crewmen might die, there was always the possibility of rescue). Now how many letters home are you willing to write explaining to some mother, father, wife, etc. that their loved one died, because you were reluctant to destroy the enemy. If I had been in General Lemay’s place, I would have made the same decision. If it meant more of my men are able to return stateside alive, then take the torch to the enemy. That’s my opinion on the matter.

@Jack Nisley

I would add two other options

Conventional Bombing: Continue the Air campaign against Japan. Daylight precision bombing utilizing B-29s met with negligible returns at first, but their efforts are slowly improving. However, night-time incendiary raids on Japanese cities have far surpassed all expectations. It is expected that their will be no targets left within a few months. American casualties are minimized, but the outcome ie. Japan's surrender remains questionable.

Diplomatic: cable intercepts and the State Department have confirmed that the Japanese are attempting to use the Soviet Union as a mediator for surrender. The one condition they seek is that the Emperor remains as their leader. Bypassing the Soviets and reccommeding the President "throw the dog a bone" and allowing Hirohito to remain Emperor, immediate surrender is a good possibility. However, it may be a trap setup by the Japanese to divide the Allies. If the President agrees to keeping the Emperor, how will our allies react?

User avatar
Jack Nisley
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 03:37
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

#28

Post by Jack Nisley » 25 Dec 2003, 21:04

Takao,

I sort of included bombardment in the blockade option, but didn't give any details. The USAAF had pretty much destroyed the big cities, but could of continued on smaller cities and towns. Effect would be to kill more civilians from direct action and exposure.

Diplomats talk a lot but rarely solve anything. Think about all the negotiations over the Balkans and Iraq. No change in conduct until military action is taken. If the Japanese Army was willing to overthrow the Emperor when he decided to surrender after the atomic bomb attacks, why would they be willing to surrender if some diplomats said the Emperor could remain on the throne?

Jack Nisley

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#29

Post by michael mills » 28 Dec 2003, 09:48

Jack Nisley asked:
Which option do you recommend?
It all depends on what my aim is, or more precisely the aim of the United States Government.

Is it simply to ensure that Japan no longer presents any sort of military threat to the United States?

Or is it to establish United States hegemony in the Pacific region?

If the former, the answer is relatively simple; basically do nothing. Just maintain the existing naval blockade to ensure that no Japanese troops get back to the home islands on any transport that they may be able to commandeer somewhere and that no fuel is smuggled in (an unlikely proposition given that the Japanese Navy and Merchant Marine have been totally put out of action for all practical purposes).

Then stand back and let Japan decide what it wants to do. Given that Japan now has zero power to project military forces beyond its shores, since it has no fuel for any remaining aircraft or ships, and no way of importing it, and no means of producing more weapons, it is no longer any sort of military threat to anyone.

Of course there are substantial Japanese forces remaining on the Asian mainland and on various islands. But they are cut off from their sources of supply in the Japanese home islands (not that the latter are now capable of supplying anything), and have no means of maintaining themselves as a fighting force. They can simply be left in place, and they will gradually disintegrate, either surrendering or just fading away.

Of course, the Soviet army might well invade Japan and occupy it. While that might not be very pleasant for the Japanese, a Soviet-occupied Japan would be no more of a military threat to the United States that a Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe.

The above assumes that the aim of the United States Government is simply to neutralise Japan as a military threat to the American homeland and people. The irony is of course that Japan was never such a threat; it never had any intention of invading and subjugating the territory and people of the United States. Its sole aim was to seize the territory in Asia that would provide it with the resources (particularly oil) it needed to become self-sufficient and develop into an economic superpower, and by rapid victory to gain the agreement of the colonial powers (Britain, France, the Netherlands) and of the United States to its hegemony over the conquered territory. The attack on United States territory in Hawaii was not an invasion, but a pre-emptive strike aimed at neutralising the US Navy in the Pacific, a bit the bombings and rocketings the United States currently lets fly at regular intervals nowadays in order to neutralise various potential hostile forces around the world.

If however the aim is to establish United States hegemony in the Pacific, then my recommendation would be different. In that case it would be necessary to occupy Japan militarily, in order to be a base for projection of United States power in the region, and also in order to keep the Soviet Union out.

If my aim was solely to achieve the objective of a rapid military occupation of Japan, without a subsidiary objective of testing new weapons on a civilian population, I would recommend demonstrative landings on Kyuushuu, coupled with an offer to negotiate with the Japanese Government. My Government would be well aware of the Japanese attempts to negotiate surrender through the Soviet Union, which the latter had refused to convey. Therefore I would know that Japanese resistance to the landings would quickly crumble, with the conscripted civilians simply throwing aside their bamboo spears, their sole weapons, and that the Japanese Government, only too grateful to have their hitherto spurned peace overtures taken up, would hasten to come to terms, agreeing to a military occupation by the United States, and political subordination to it, while retaining internal independence and access to the raw materials now under United States control (in fact, the political solution that actually did occur).

User avatar
Mauser K98k
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 04:29
Location: Colorado

#30

Post by Mauser K98k » 19 Jan 2004, 06:28

Lemay chose the low level firebombing tactic mainly because what Japanese industry had not been destroyed had been de-centralized and spread out among the suburban residental areas. Hundreds of small machine shops, etc. were interspersed in private homes.
Since these areas were made of wood and tightly packed together, fire was the obvious way of taking them out.

Locked

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”