5 ms·

>Ieyasu sees the bird and says, if you do not sing for me, then I will wait until you do sing. He then sits and waits (forever). The world had spent several ye

>Ieyasu sees the bird and says, if you do not sing for me, then I will wait until you do sing. He then sits and waits (forever). The world had spent several years waiting for the Axis powers to be start being peaceful. Suggesting that everyone should have just sat and waited for them to stop waging war goes well beyond ignoring reality.

xigency 11y ago
Well, he was the first Shogun of Japan and he also lived the longest. Take it with a grain of salt.
merpnderp 11y ago
Just China averaged 100,000 civilians killed per month (Korea and Indochina also had a steady massacre of civilians). Waiting for Japan to capitulate would of had its own serious set of costs. [Edit changed "murdered" to "killed" to make it less inflammatory]
- hga 11y ago
  Total estimate by the point of dropping the bombs was around 250,000 killed per month throughout the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, also including Malaya as it was called back then and Indonesia. That wouldn't include the previously liberated Philippines, a battle which cost 100-500K Philippine lives, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre
  - xigency 11y ago
    Well, the analogy obviously doesn't cover all cases. Certain concessions could have been made to negotiate a surrender other than demanding unconditional surrender and for the emperor to resign. Again I'm not a historian, so my point of view is limited. Culturally at the time there was a sort of head down stubborn attitude in Japan. Finding a solution to ending the conflict that fit within the scale of the violence would still be difficult, but it's hard to consider atomic weapons as the only way to end it. Hindsight is always 20/20. In this case not really. There's no way to know 100% what would have happened, all we know is what did happen.
    - hga 11y ago
      Based on this exhaustive study I recently read http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-August-Became-Nuclear/dp/0691128189 http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-August-Became-Nuclear/dp/069... there was signaling we were open to allowing the Emperor to stay. History's been my thing since, oh, the early 70s, and in the last half decade I've been closely studying WWII history, especially in the Pacific, and the Manhattan Project in general in the last half year or so. Nothing I've come across suggests there was any better option, if you accept the targeting of mixed use civilian-industrial areas. Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was toast as originally planned, too many IJA ground reinforcements, and our estimate of the number of Kamikazes was low, actually 8,000 or so (!). Thanks to the latter, the Battle of Okinawa was the most costly in US naval history, and it would have been much worse with their not having to fly so far let alone over the featureless ocean. Those who knew about the Manhattan Project were planning on using 5-8 bombs to make Olympic feasible, and per the above linked book, there was major discussion about what to do with the 3rd bomb if the 2nd didn't force a surrender. Those who didn't know were planning on mass use of chemical weapons.... The Soviets wouldn't have been much help, if ever, in taking the home islands (who's navy would land them even if they were willing?), but it didn't hurt how they predictably smashed through the IJA in China when they got started between the two bombs. Just letting them starve on the home islands ... very bad, and again, costing a quarter million lives a month in the sphere outside of the home islands. East Asia was already enough of an abattoir, 25 million plus lives lost. As for concessions, besides the fact that we'd pledged "unconditional surrender", which we indeed backed off of for the Emperor, I'm just not aware of what specific concessions we could have made that would have likely made a difference. Especially since unconditional surrender was part of a "never again" post-WWI attitude (per Tom Lehrer's MLF Lullaby "We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then") we were very determined that we wouldn't have to do this again. And, you know, we succeeded, and as I've noted in a previous recent A-bombing discussion, we've not had another great powers war since then.
      - xigency 11y ago
        You're right, that does sound exhaustive. Anyway, I just wanted to share my unique perspective and experiences without getting down voted, and I've already lost 2 karma on this discussion. If you have an interest in the country's culture more than its military history (or modern military history) you might enjoy some of Alex Kerr's writing, either Lost Japan or Dogs and Demons.

xigency 11y ago

Well, he was the first Shogun of Japan and he also lived the longest. Take it with a grain of salt.

merpnderp 11y ago

Just China averaged 100,000 civilians killed per month (Korea and Indochina also had a steady massacre of civilians). Waiting for Japan to capitulate would of had its own serious set of costs. [Edit changed "murdered" to "killed" to make it less inflammatory]

hga 11y ago
Total estimate by the point of dropping the bombs was around 250,000 killed per month throughout the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, also including Malaya as it was called back then and Indonesia. That wouldn't include the previously liberated Philippines, a battle which cost 100-500K Philippine lives, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre
- xigency 11y ago
  Well, the analogy obviously doesn't cover all cases. Certain concessions could have been made to negotiate a surrender other than demanding unconditional surrender and for the emperor to resign. Again I'm not a historian, so my point of view is limited. Culturally at the time there was a sort of head down stubborn attitude in Japan. Finding a solution to ending the conflict that fit within the scale of the violence would still be difficult, but it's hard to consider atomic weapons as the only way to end it. Hindsight is always 20/20. In this case not really. There's no way to know 100% what would have happened, all we know is what did happen.
  - hga 11y ago
    Based on this exhaustive study I recently read http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-August-Became-Nuclear/dp/0691128189 http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-August-Became-Nuclear/dp/069... there was signaling we were open to allowing the Emperor to stay. History's been my thing since, oh, the early 70s, and in the last half decade I've been closely studying WWII history, especially in the Pacific, and the Manhattan Project in general in the last half year or so. Nothing I've come across suggests there was any better option, if you accept the targeting of mixed use civilian-industrial areas. Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was toast as originally planned, too many IJA ground reinforcements, and our estimate of the number of Kamikazes was low, actually 8,000 or so (!). Thanks to the latter, the Battle of Okinawa was the most costly in US naval history, and it would have been much worse with their not having to fly so far let alone over the featureless ocean. Those who knew about the Manhattan Project were planning on using 5-8 bombs to make Olympic feasible, and per the above linked book, there was major discussion about what to do with the 3rd bomb if the 2nd didn't force a surrender. Those who didn't know were planning on mass use of chemical weapons.... The Soviets wouldn't have been much help, if ever, in taking the home islands (who's navy would land them even if they were willing?), but it didn't hurt how they predictably smashed through the IJA in China when they got started between the two bombs. Just letting them starve on the home islands ... very bad, and again, costing a quarter million lives a month in the sphere outside of the home islands. East Asia was already enough of an abattoir, 25 million plus lives lost. As for concessions, besides the fact that we'd pledged "unconditional surrender", which we indeed backed off of for the Emperor, I'm just not aware of what specific concessions we could have made that would have likely made a difference. Especially since unconditional surrender was part of a "never again" post-WWI attitude (per Tom Lehrer's MLF Lullaby "We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then") we were very determined that we wouldn't have to do this again. And, you know, we succeeded, and as I've noted in a previous recent A-bombing discussion, we've not had another great powers war since then.
    - xigency 11y ago
      You're right, that does sound exhaustive. Anyway, I just wanted to share my unique perspective and experiences without getting down voted, and I've already lost 2 karma on this discussion. If you have an interest in the country's culture more than its military history (or modern military history) you might enjoy some of Alex Kerr's writing, either Lost Japan or Dogs and Demons.