3 ms·

Carlin's podcast on this subject, summarizing other well-researched histories, gives a much better idea of why firebombing and the atomic bomb were considered w

Carlin's podcast on this subject, summarizing other well-researched histories, gives a much better idea of why firebombing and the atomic bomb were considered within bounds. The Japanese government was willing to throw away an appalling number of military and civilian lives in order to delay inevitable defeat, or at the very least attempt to bargain for better terms on which to end the war. (Carlin accurately describes this as "a form of political murder.") In places like Burma, New Guinea, and Peleliu, Japanese soldiers were thrown into utterly hopeless actions in order to inflict as many Allied casualties as possible. Beyond this, Japanese soldiers generally refused to surrender, and often had to be killed to the last man. Firebombing and the atomic bomb, while obviously subjects of internal bureaucratic and ideological jockeying, were considered viable primarily because they might shorten a long and very brutal war. Whether they did so or not is debatable, but we'd be on very shaky ground to debate the morality of the attempt from the comfort of posterity. I don't particularly care for Gladwell's glib nonsense, but I also find fault with the sort of anti-Gladwell Brooklyn-podcaster history (e.g. https://thebaffler.com/latest/narrative-napalm-kulwin https://thebaffler.com/latest/narrative-napalm-kulwin) that engages in righteous hand-wringing over supposed American atrocities, without once mentioning any of the context above, nor Japan's atrocities in China in the 1930s leading up to the conflict, nor the very obvious fact that America didn't start the war.

coliveira 5y ago
This is a bunch of nonsense. The real reason Americans wanted to finish the war with Japan quickly (at any cost) is that they were afraid that Russia would invade Japan.
- ww2buff 5y ago
  There was a faction of right wing Republicans who wanted to end the war quickly in order to forestall Russia, but they wanted to end the war quickly by forgoing an invasion and allowing Japan to surrender conditionally, without an occupation or a forced change of government or constitution, because they thought an armed and relatively intact militarist-run Japan would be a good buffer against the Soviet Union. This was unacceptable to the liberal new deal faction running the US government, who believed that a disarmed and democratic Japan was the only way to prevent another war. “They only wanted to keep the commies out” is a nicely glib line, but one that glosses over the many, many political considerations that shaped the end of the pacific war and reveals an almost total ignorance of the scholarship on the subject
- mezentius 5y ago
  There is no convincing evidence for this argument. The Soviet Union was deeply engaged in its war against Nazi Germany until the very bitter end, and fully mobilized in that direction. Beyond that, America provided immense quantities of aid to the Soviet Union in the form of Lend-Lease, including military hardware. Some would argue that this was profoundly short-sighted given the realpolitik of Stalin's approach to the war, with an eye on what the Soviet Union would do in the conquered territories of Eastern Europe after the war (as a realization of tsarist fantasies going back a hundred years or more). But the fact is that--while every decision has various complicating factors related to political and institutional concerns--America's primary focus was on ending the war as quickly as possible with an unconditional surrender.
- slipframe 5y ago
  Nonsense? How about you read up on Operation Ten-Go and the senseless suicidal demise of the battleship Yamato, wasting the lives of two and a half thousand Japanese men to accomplish absolutely nothing except a show of defiance. In total more than 4,000 Japanese men lost their lives that day, while less than 100 Americans were killed. They knew it was suicide and they did it anyway. > The ships' crews were briefed on the nature of the mission and given the opportunity to stay behind if desired; none did. Your parent post is right, the Japanese military were absolute fanatics. Edit: And another point. After the second atomic bombing, military officers attempted to overthrow the Japanese emperor to prevent the surrender. After the second atomic bombing. Let that sink in. If not for the heroic actions of a few Japanese men, they might have succeeded in suppressing the broadcast of the surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
  - mezentius 5y ago
    This is a good example, although I would be careful about characterizing the entire Japanese military as fanatics. (To his great credit, Carlin is also careful in this regard, and discusses the issue at some length.) The average Japanese soldier was certainly perceived as a fanatic—due a combination of the evidence at hand at the time, deliberate Japanese policy and propaganda, and also a lot of rather nasty racial narratives—which had a lot to do with why total war was seen as unavoidable.
    - slipframe 5y ago
      I think the word fanatic is justified, but I see that it has derogatory connotations. Let's put it this way, the Japanese military, soldiers, sailors and officers, all provided their extreme courage and devotion numerous times over in that war. Courage and devotion to a horrible cause, but nonetheless they certainly weren't quitters. Another example: 21,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima, but only 216 taken as prisoners. They fought for five weeks until the bitter end. The stubborn defiance demonstrated at the Battle of Iwo Jima and Operation Ten-Go both played a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan.
- secabeen 5y ago
  The research I've read recently puts this concern on the Japanese side. They delayed their surrender, despite atomic attacks, until after it was clear that the Russians were starting to pivot to the Pacific theater, and decided it was better to surrender to the US today than to endure a Russian invasion and occupation.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    The Emperor states himself in his surrender that his decision was influenced by the display of the atomic bombs, and ultimately it was the Emperor who put the final end to the Japanese war effort. It’s probably foolish to say the Soviets didn’t play a part in the decisions of some of the men involved but I also strongly doubt there’s a compelling argument that it was more influential than what the Americans had just shown themselves capable of doing. The Soviets were a distant threat compared to the Americans continually bombing Japan for 3 months up to that point.
    - secabeen 5y ago
      > The Emperor states himself in his surrender that his decision was influenced by the display of the atomic bombs, and ultimately it was the Emperor who put the final end to the Japanese war effort. The argument goes that the Emperor's public statements were an effort to save face in front of the country. "No, it wasn't our incompetence that created defeat, they had a Super Weapon!" The Russians could have had ground troops on Japanese territory in days, compared to weeks or months for the Americans.

coliveira 5y ago

This is a bunch of nonsense. The real reason Americans wanted to finish the war with Japan quickly (at any cost) is that they were afraid that Russia would invade Japan.

ww2buff 5y ago
There was a faction of right wing Republicans who wanted to end the war quickly in order to forestall Russia, but they wanted to end the war quickly by forgoing an invasion and allowing Japan to surrender conditionally, without an occupation or a forced change of government or constitution, because they thought an armed and relatively intact militarist-run Japan would be a good buffer against the Soviet Union. This was unacceptable to the liberal new deal faction running the US government, who believed that a disarmed and democratic Japan was the only way to prevent another war. “They only wanted to keep the commies out” is a nicely glib line, but one that glosses over the many, many political considerations that shaped the end of the pacific war and reveals an almost total ignorance of the scholarship on the subject
mezentius 5y ago
There is no convincing evidence for this argument. The Soviet Union was deeply engaged in its war against Nazi Germany until the very bitter end, and fully mobilized in that direction. Beyond that, America provided immense quantities of aid to the Soviet Union in the form of Lend-Lease, including military hardware. Some would argue that this was profoundly short-sighted given the realpolitik of Stalin's approach to the war, with an eye on what the Soviet Union would do in the conquered territories of Eastern Europe after the war (as a realization of tsarist fantasies going back a hundred years or more). But the fact is that--while every decision has various complicating factors related to political and institutional concerns--America's primary focus was on ending the war as quickly as possible with an unconditional surrender.
slipframe 5y ago
Nonsense? How about you read up on Operation Ten-Go and the senseless suicidal demise of the battleship Yamato, wasting the lives of two and a half thousand Japanese men to accomplish absolutely nothing except a show of defiance. In total more than 4,000 Japanese men lost their lives that day, while less than 100 Americans were killed. They knew it was suicide and they did it anyway. > The ships' crews were briefed on the nature of the mission and given the opportunity to stay behind if desired; none did. Your parent post is right, the Japanese military were absolute fanatics. Edit: And another point. After the second atomic bombing, military officers attempted to overthrow the Japanese emperor to prevent the surrender. After the second atomic bombing. Let that sink in. If not for the heroic actions of a few Japanese men, they might have succeeded in suppressing the broadcast of the surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
- mezentius 5y ago
  This is a good example, although I would be careful about characterizing the entire Japanese military as fanatics. (To his great credit, Carlin is also careful in this regard, and discusses the issue at some length.) The average Japanese soldier was certainly perceived as a fanatic—due a combination of the evidence at hand at the time, deliberate Japanese policy and propaganda, and also a lot of rather nasty racial narratives—which had a lot to do with why total war was seen as unavoidable.
  - slipframe 5y ago
    I think the word fanatic is justified, but I see that it has derogatory connotations. Let's put it this way, the Japanese military, soldiers, sailors and officers, all provided their extreme courage and devotion numerous times over in that war. Courage and devotion to a horrible cause, but nonetheless they certainly weren't quitters. Another example: 21,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima, but only 216 taken as prisoners. They fought for five weeks until the bitter end. The stubborn defiance demonstrated at the Battle of Iwo Jima and Operation Ten-Go both played a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan.
secabeen 5y ago
The research I've read recently puts this concern on the Japanese side. They delayed their surrender, despite atomic attacks, until after it was clear that the Russians were starting to pivot to the Pacific theater, and decided it was better to surrender to the US today than to endure a Russian invasion and occupation.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  The Emperor states himself in his surrender that his decision was influenced by the display of the atomic bombs, and ultimately it was the Emperor who put the final end to the Japanese war effort. It’s probably foolish to say the Soviets didn’t play a part in the decisions of some of the men involved but I also strongly doubt there’s a compelling argument that it was more influential than what the Americans had just shown themselves capable of doing. The Soviets were a distant threat compared to the Americans continually bombing Japan for 3 months up to that point.
  - secabeen 5y ago
    > The Emperor states himself in his surrender that his decision was influenced by the display of the atomic bombs, and ultimately it was the Emperor who put the final end to the Japanese war effort. The argument goes that the Emperor's public statements were an effort to save face in front of the country. "No, it wasn't our incompetence that created defeat, they had a Super Weapon!" The Russians could have had ground troops on Japanese territory in days, compared to weeks or months for the Americans.