Split from: Japan tried to surrender before Hiroshima/History/Critical Thought

[Roadtoad]

One of the things that tends to frighten me about some of the CT threads, and, in fact, some of the CE threads, is the lack of understanding regarding history. I realize there are reasons for this, not the least of which being that American schools simply don't teach it, nor do they do it well when they do it at all. (Much of what I got from school was biased towards either strident neo-patriotism or extreme anti-Americanism, neither of which was very helpful.)

The current argument in the thread regarding Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the use of atomic weaponry, is illustrative of this. Those of us who have read through this have seen a misuse of the historical record, as well as blatant and willful ignorance of that record.

Disclosure: I have no college degree. What I know is what I have endeavored to learn on my own. As such, I have a copy of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (abridged, dammit) The Federalist Papers, Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose, and a whole host of other history books, which, given my schedule of work and it's lack therein, are in various stages of completion and study. Some of these guys write well, some write poorly. Some, simply put, are dry as hell. All are ultimately necessary, simply because the historical record has shown them to be accurate. (And, it's true. Gibbon lived out his sex life in his footnotes.)

I realize that in the present context, a great deal of what took place in history seems incredibly cruel and arrogant. Unfortunately for the majority of us, history does not take place in a kinder, gentler era, and the reality is that a great deal of it is outright brutal.

Just as one example, history shows us that, indeed, people like Hernan Cortez and his band of treasure hunters, as well as a great many others, attacked indigenous American nations, and killed a great many of them. The problem is in the selective presentation of history, which ignores the reality that most indigenous Americans weren't killed by invaders, but that states of war had existed between many of these early nations for centuries, (such as between the Blackfoot and the Cheyenne and Kiowa), and that many of them were killed by diseases brought by the early European settlers, including Smallpox. Since they lacked immunity from these diseases, they were more susceptible to them. It's unknown the actual number of those killed by disease, but many of the nations affected by disease accurately deduced that the source of such disease was from the newcomers.

This, of course, is a limited example. Another would be the Revisionists who claim the American Civil War, (aka, The War Between the States or The War of Northern Aggression), was about States Rights, and that Slavery had nothing to do with it. (Don't EVEN get me started!) There are others, many of which are more germane to this discussion, but it seemed wise to begin here.

In the thread I've cited in the title, the current claim by certain posters is that the use of atomic weapons was unnecessary against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was suggested that such weapons could have been used in a demonstration on an uninhabited island, thus, showing the Imperial Japanese government what we were capable of. At that point, they would likely surrender.

And, frankly, for anyone who's bothered to read a copy of National Geographic, that's a load of crap.

The first thing to bear in mind is that you're dealing with a complex and advanced civilization which goes back centuries, and is easily as old as any within the Middle East, particularly as regards to any recorded within the Old Testament. Japanese civilization predates much of our record. As such, it's more than a little arrogant to apply American standards to a civilization which was in full flower long before Lief Erickson made his first visit to Vinland.

Second, there's the military aspect of this. Japan was invaded on two occasions by Kublai Khan, (the same one visited by Marco Polo), and both attempts failed miserably. (On one occasion, Khan's fleet was decimated by a typhoon, thus, bringing to the Japanese the term kamikaze, or "divine wind.") As such, Japan began to develop a very strong militaristic view, one which drove them to invade far and wide across Asia. This had two goals: To scare the hell out of Japan's enemies, and to enrich the Imperial coffers. It ultimately did both, which had some positive results for Japan, but didn't exactly earn them many friends in Korea, China, and much of what we now call Indochina.

Japan was also a very closed society, which only opened when American naval vessels showed up with their guns aimed at the Imperial palace. (Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit.) You can debate the wisdom of this, but you cannot debate the ultimate effect. We may have given Japan baseball, but in return, a society which for centuries had forsaken firearms took them up again.

Given Japan's past, they simply had no word for surrender. It didn't exist in their language, nor did they understand the concept. They were of the same mind as Kaiser Wilhelm: "If our enemies compel us to fight, we ask not how many, but where they are." Japan has always viewed itself as a very small nation, but one that had to be defended at all costs. You achieve in Japanese society, not because Japan is so great, but because in the world, Japan is very small.

Americans swagger. Japanese bow. It's an entirely different mindset.

Japan has always been a very aggressive nation, mainly as a first line of defense for the nation. Conquest was only part of the equation. The rest of it was to keep the nation's enemies at bay and off their shores. The schools taught the lessons learned from Khan's invasion fleet, and how they mistreated the people they took captive. They taught how Japanese pirates kept the Chinese not only at bay, but helped to push them back away from the shores of Hokkaido, Kyushu, and the rest of Japan. If a the best defense is a good offense, Japan made damned sure they had the best one available.

Further, Japan was not a collection of mere brutes. They learned from every society they encountered. From the Okinawans, the Koreans, the Chinese, they borrowed and improved on the skills and disciplines they held. The Kanje script used in Japan came from Chinese monks, as one example.

To the Japanese, the fight with China was a centuries old affair. China had to be subdued. The Rape of Nanking was simply one more battle in a centuries old war which hadn't abated one iota since Khan's troops began dragging off Japanese women to serve as prostitutes for the Chinese.

(Unit 731 was something else entirely. Commanded by General Shiro Ishii, the UN has since declared this unit's actions to have been Crimes Against Humanity.)

Japan was not going to surrender. Not to anyone. The book Guadalcanal Diary, by Richard Tregaskis, detailed the brutality and determination of the Japanese troops. This was further emphasized by the actions of the Japanese at Iwo Jima, and on Okinawa. To further underscore this, I would ask you: How many German and Italian POWs were there in World War II? And how many Japanese POWs? To the Japanese, failure was not an option. They had centuries of experience which told them that failure meant the end of Japan.

Japan may have lost battles, but they had never really lost the war, at least in their minds. By the time you had American, British, Australian, and other troops gathering for an invasion of Japan, you also had Japanese soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilians preparing for a last ditch effort to repel anyone attempting to land on Japanese soil.

One of the things which stopped Khan's efforts was the miserable landing conditions his troops encountered. The shoreline where they landed was narrow, (like Omaha Beach), low, and could easily cover those wanting to repel an invasion. This had not improved over the centuries, and given the time the Imperial Army had to prepare, it was getting even worse. You had entrenched enemies prepared on a dangerous beach which could have resulted in troop losses which could have been double what they were at Normandy. The fight would have easily stretched into 1946, possibly 1947, since invading troops would now have to fight on enemy soil.

I'd suggest to anyone wanting to get an idea of enormousness of the task that they take a long hard look at the Japan archipelago. This is over 1,000 islands, all of which would need to be cleared of opposition forces. Two words for anyone considering such a military action: Good luck.

General Curtis LeMay was running 24 hour a day sorties over Japan. They were dropping incendiary bombs across the Japanese islands, flying at 5,000 feet with B-29 bombers. The Japanese were throwing anything they could get their hands on at those planes, and still the planes kept coming. There were genuine concerns that the rice harvest would fail and that the people would starve, and yet, the Japanese military, faced with both of these threats, continued to fight.

The first bomb, Little Boy, was dropped from the Enola Gay, on August 6th, 1945. Prior to this, the US government asked Japan to surrender. Japan declined. After the bomb was dropped, the request was repeated. Japan declined.

On August 9th, Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan was still refusing to surrender.

It was only when it was made clear that more bombs would be ready that Japan surrendered, and then, only because the Japanese throne was to be preserved.

The Japanese still do not get it. While they have some limited understanding of what happened, they still do not teach their children that America entered World War II because they attacked Pearl Harbor. Had they left us alone, it's highly unlikely that we'd have entered the war at all because Roosevelt wouldn't have had the support, even as England was fighting for its very survival. Much of the history of WWII has been edited, and the reason for the dropping of the bombs is omitted from Japanese classrooms. We are not helped by American celebrities showing up on August 6th in Hiroshima, weeping with the Japanese, while failing to remind them of the reason for the war in the first place. It's insulting to the Americans who fought WWII, and to the memory of those Japanese who fought as well.

It's equally insulting to attempt to compare the War in the Pacific with Vietnam. According to William F. Buckley, "We went into Vietnam to make a resonant point [regarding Soviet expansionism]. We failed to make it resonantly." It was an entirely different war, and it was made on a number of false assumptions, about our enemies, about our allies, and about ourselves. (See Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie.) World War II was a necessary response to outside aggression by a foreign power against our own territory. Vietnam still has yet to be sorted out, and may not be for years to come, though it's looking less and less positive for Robert MacNamara, who argued for it not because it was a smart move, but because he was simply interested in keeping his job.

I doubt this will change the minds of the trolls, but I'm hoping that some ideas have been brought to the table which some might agree on, and that a better understanding of what does, and does not, constitute critical thinking in history. If anything, I'd like to think this is one area where we'd press for it.

[dudalb]

How much of it is genuine ignorance and how much the old "if facts disagree with my ideology the facts must be disposed of" syndrome is hard to tell.
It's a viscous circle: Ignorance can cause you to buy into woo theories, but once you buy into woo theories big time you tend to automatically ignore evidence that disproves them.
A good example is the Pilger article that started the whole Hiroshima thread. It is painfully obvious that Pilger hates the US, and this colors everything he writes,espicially the way he almost instantly dismisses any argument that the US dropped the bomb out of anything but malovelent evil.

[Roadtoad]

True. I'd further add that this would be one of the reasons it's so hard for anyone who's accepted "god" to change their viewpoint. You indoctrinate yourself into the view that what's positive is because you've made your special deity happy, and what's negative is because he's pissed off with you. As Doubting Stephen describes this, you're following a psychotic sky fairy, failing to realize, of course, that bad things simply happen.

[Chaos]

One of the things that tends to frighten me about some of the CT threads, and, in fact, some of the CE threads, is the lack of understanding regarding history. I realize there are reasons for this, not the least of which being that American schools simply don't teach it, nor do they do it well when they do it at all. (Much of what I got from school was biased towards either strident neo-patriotism or extreme anti-Americanism, neither of which was very helpful.)

I am beginning to understand what Ray Beiersdorfer meant when he told me that public education was getting in the way of his daughters´ education. ;)
Normally I´d gloat about this a bit, because that´s what´s expected from a European smart-ass, but then, I got most of my history from my own studies, too. Mostly "Pocket History of the United States" by Nevins/Commager, where the US is concerned.


(And, it's true. Gibbon lived out his sex life in his footnotes.)

Okay, now you´ve sold me on his book. :D

I realize that in the present context, a great deal of what took place in history seems incredibly cruel and arrogant. Unfortunately for the majority of us, history does not take place in a kinder, gentler era, and the reality is that a great deal of it is outright brutal.

O tempora, o mores, as the Romans used to say. Except they meant things kept getting worse...

This, of course, is a limited example. Another would be the Revisionists who claim the American Civil War, (aka, The War Between the States or The War of Northern Aggression), was about States Rights, and that Slavery had nothing to do with it. (Don't EVEN get me started!) There are others, many of which are more germane to this discussion, but it seemed wise to begin here.

I´ve got to say... reading some of the discussions about that one, you´d never guess it has been over for going on 150 years now.


Second, there's the military aspect of this. Japan was invaded on two occasions by Kublai Khan, (the same one visited by Marco Polo), and both attempts failed miserably. (On one occasion, Khan's fleet was decimated by a typhoon, thus, bringing to the Japanese the term kamikaze, or "divine wind.")

Actually, I think both attempts suffered from the monsoon to a large degree - that´s the main part of what persuaded the Japanese: once is luck, twice is divine intervention.
Minor quibble, though: from what I read, the Japanese did not call their attacks "kamikaze", they called them "Special Attack Units" ("tokkutai" or something like that, in Japanese), which they hoped would be like the kamikaze. The "kamikaze" moniker is something that was pinned to the thing by you Yanks.

Japan was also a very closed society, which only opened when American naval vessels showed up with their guns aimed at the Imperial palace. (Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit.) You can debate the wisdom of this, but you cannot debate the ultimate effect. We may have given Japan baseball, but in return, a society which for centuries had forsaken firearms took them up again.

You´ll have to keep in mind, they had forsaken firearms not out of pacifism, or fairness, but because with firearms, a peasant could easily kill a samurai, thus upsetting the social order.


Further, Japan was not a collection of mere brutes. They learned from every society they encountered. From the Okinawans, the Koreans, the Chinese, they borrowed and improved on the skills and disciplines they held. The Kanje script used in Japan came from Chinese monks, as one example.

And they did a damn fine job learning modern warfare from the West, let´s not forget that.


The Japanese still do not get it. While they have some limited understanding of what happened, they still do not teach their children that America entered World War II because they attacked Pearl Harbor. Had they left us alone, it's highly unlikely that we'd have entered the war at all because Roosevelt wouldn't have had the support, even as England was fighting for its very survival. Much of the history of WWII has been edited, and the reason for the dropping of the bombs is omitted from Japanese classrooms. We are not helped by American celebrities showing up on August 6th in Hiroshima, weeping with the Japanese, while failing to remind them of the reason for the war in the first place. It's insulting to the Americans who fought WWII, and to the memory of those Japanese who fought as well.

I´ve come to the study of WW2 in the Pacific through wargaming. One of the more interesting what-if scenarios is "what if the Japanese had not attacked US on 12/7/41, but limited themselves to war against the UK and the Dutch?"
A second very interesting scenario is "what if the A-bombs had not worked, and the invasion of Japan had taken place?"


I doubt this will change the minds of the trolls, but I'm hoping that some ideas have been brought to the table which some might agree on, and that a better understanding of what does, and does not, constitute critical thinking in history. If anything, I'd like to think this is one area where we'd press for it.

It´s food for thought, definitely... at least for those who enjoy that kind of cuisine. Allow me to say that, for someone who considers himself no more than a busted-up old trucker, you´re a pretty good cook.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I didn't know there were days in between the bombings. A short story I read which claimed that history would be no different if the pilots had both 'missed' gave me the impression that the bombs were dropped minutes apart at most.

[Roadtoad]

I didn't know there were days in between the bombings. A short story I read which claimed that history would be no different if the pilots had both 'missed' gave me the impression that the bombs were dropped minutes apart at most.

This might be a good place to start. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

I'd also read the book, Enola Gay, by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts. They'll help to fill in a lot of gaps.

Also worth reading is this site (http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/enola/) regarding the continuing controversy.

[MG1962]

The whole A Bombing of Japan will be tinged with controversy till hell freezes over. The war, from all combants had decended into a level of savagery that scared a lot of people when it was all over. While dealing with the A bomb, people forget the numbers of deaths the fire raids on Tokyo etc were causing. People forget how many Japanese were starving to death on a daily basis. They forget how many sericemen and civilians would have died in an invasion.

The bombings were an abomination, they were an abomination that even after the first one was detonated, the Japanese government were not prepared to say enough is enough. But ya know what. I can not for the life of me think of any other course of action the leader of the United States could undertake. He had no moral obligation to allow US citizens die at the expense of Japanese casualties.

Japans destiny was in her own hands. The conditions of surrender were spelled out, the oppotunity to accept them were there.

[costa]

The whole A Bombing of Japan will be tinged with controversy till hell freezes over. The war, from all combants had decended into a level of savagery that scared a lot of people when it was all over. While dealing with the A bomb, people forget the numbers of deaths the fire raids on Tokyo etc were causing. People forget how many Japanese were starving to death on a daily basis. They forget how many sericemen and civilians would have died in an invasion.

The bombings were an abomination, they were an abomination that even after the first one was detonated, the Japanese government were not prepared to say enough is enough. But ya know what. I can not for the life of me think of any other course of action the leader of the United States could undertake. He had no moral obligation to allow US citizens die at the expense of Japanese casualties.

Japans destiny was in her own hands. The conditions of surrender were spelled out, the oppotunity to accept them were there.
just how many people were slautered(yes slrughtered)in shanghai?some japanese oficersmade a contest of how many head they could cut off.tyhe death march in batann.(cousen was in one of thelucjky one to survive)the nukes we dropedin japan doesnt compare to the atrocities the japanese comited.after the war was over one of the japanese got elected claiming hoe he ate the liver of one of his american pows.ah yes,pity the poor japanese ..bah!

[Toke]

I suspect the japanese volkssturm would have worked quite well.
An invasion would not have been fun, and maybe lost.

[MG1962]

I suspect the japanese volkssturm would have worked quite well.
An invasion would not have been fun, and maybe lost.

Some time ago I saw some numbers that during the first 48 hours of the invasion, casualties were predicted at 4000 military deaths an hour. I have war gamed the invasion a few times, and the tough part is securing the beach head. Once you do that, superior US technology slowly gains the upper hand. But it aint pretty, not by any stretch.

[Travis]

Some time ago I saw some numbers that during the first 48 hours of the invasion, casualties were predicted at 4000 military deaths an hour. I have war gamed the invasion a few times, and the tough part is securing the beach head. Once you do that, superior US technology slowly gains the upper hand. But it aint pretty, not by any stretch.

As I mentioned in the other thread, what would have made it particularly hard is that the Japanese had tasked their most brilliant strategic minds to figuring out where the US forces would land and ultimately came to the correct conclusion. They thus had a pretty extensive defensive plan centered around exactly where the US forces were intended to go.

[MG1962]

As I mentioned in the other thread, what would have made it particularly hard is that the Japanese had tasked their most brilliant strategic minds to figuring out where the US forces would land and ultimately came to the correct conclusion. They thus had a pretty extensive defensive plan centered around exactly where the US forces were intended to go.

Then throw in their tenacious attitude displayed on the battle field, the fact their moral was suprisingly high, and I really dont see what options Truman had.

And if the bomb had not been dropped, this thread would have been about the exact opposite.....The US should have used the weapon

[a_unique_person]

Japan did surrender, though. So although surrender was not an option for some in the circles of power, ultimately it could, and did, happen.

Ethically, I can't see why the first bomb could not be dropped as a demonstration. Even if it didn't work to end the war, it was the right thing to do.

As for an invasion, when you have the bomb, you can just stand off till they do give in.

Also, the time between the first bomb and the second was too close. For the factions that wanted to surrender, in the chaos of Japan at that time, when all was lost, there was not much to be lost by letting the more rational people work to get their way. To comprehend what had happened, to get the message around, was going to be difficult with the extremists.

[kedo1981]

It's also not taught to School children that they had killed more than 15 million people since 1932 in the course of there invasions

[Travis]

One of the reasons for not doing a demonstration was that there was a desire for psychological surprise. If you forewarn them about a potential new weapon then they are liable to come back with something like an ultimatum to not use the weapon against their cities or all the POW's get executed. So the idea, alternatively, is to not give them time to think about how they might respond to such a weapon and surprise them with it and then hit them again before they really compose themselves in the hope that the shock and stress of the double whammy might illicit a surrender when time to contemplate might simply give them time to figure out a way to counter it.

[MG1962]

Japan did surrender, though. So although surrender was not an option for some in the circles of power, ultimately it could, and did, happen.

Ethically, I can't see why the first bomb could not be dropped as a demonstration. Even if it didn't work to end the war, it was the right thing to do.

As for an invasion, when you have the bomb, you can just stand off till they do give in.

Also, the time between the first bomb and the second was too close. For the factions that wanted to surrender, in the chaos of Japan at that time, when all was lost, there was not much to be lost by letting the more rational people work to get their way. To comprehend what had happened, to get the message around, was going to be difficult with the extremists.

But I am not sure time would have worked. The vote before the second bomb was split and it was the Emperor himself who voted for a continuation of the confict.

Even after the second bombing it was a near run thing, in terms of the vote. And if my memory is correct, there was an attempted palace over throw because many could not believe the Emperor would do what he did.

If the second bomb had not worked, I am not sure what the US would have done. The first bomb was delivered with a "That'll teach em' attitude, the second "Show'em it was no fluke" With the horrors of radiation sickness surfacing, one wonders if Truman would have faultered or not

[a_unique_person]

But I am not sure time would have worked. The vote before the second bomb was split and it was the Emperor himself who voted for a continuation of the confict.

Even after the second bombing it was a near run thing, in terms of the vote. And if my memory is correct, there was an attempted palace over throw because many could not believe the Emperor would do what he did.

If the second bomb had not worked, I am not sure what the US would have done. The first bomb was delivered with a "That'll teach em' attitude, the second "Show'em it was no fluke" With the horrors of radiation sickness surfacing, one wonders if Truman would have faultered or not

But I think you are obligated to give them a chance. As you noted with radiation sickness, it took time for that to become apparent.

[a_unique_person]

It's also not taught to School children that they had killed more than 15 million people since 1932 in the course of there invasions

Which is a disgrace. The history of the war has been hidden from Japanese to an extent. There is also the problem of the reverence given to war criminals. The Japanese had a lot to answer for.

[Corsair 115]

Ethically, I can't see why the first bomb could not be dropped as a demonstration.


Why though? Practically speaking, a city can be obliterated quite effectively with plain old incendiary and high explosive bombs. An atomic bomb basically just ramps up the efficiency by reducing the number of bombs and aircraft needed to just one of each. There were no demonstrations of the destructive power of conventional raids given before they were used.

[Ove]

I must compliment you Roadtoad, A+ from me on that paper :) it won't help though i'm afraid. The CT'ers ar much to preoccupied with their own ideas to consider something as trivial as FACTS.. ;)

I can reccomend this miniseries: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113309/ it seems to me to be the best dramatisation yet made and i think it gives a very good description of the events, from both sides.

[bignickel]

I just recently picked up a comic book called "Storming Paradise", which might be interesting to some on this thread.

It's a "what-if" story that examines the American invasion of the Japan Home Islands, after the first atomic test accidently kills everyone involved.

I'd say the first issue was quite interesting. Especially the 2 german scientists who are being taken somewhere on a U-Boat...

http://www.rackraids.com/?p=1645

[Biscuit]

Ethically, I can't see why the first bomb could not be dropped as a demonstration. Even if it didn't work to end the war, it was the right thing to do.

Yes, ethically that would have been a more humane action. However, based on what actually happened, we can assume that it would not have made one bit of difference.

If you want to make the argument that America's decision to use a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was unethical because they did not warn the Japanese first then I have a few questions. Who should we have shown the footage to? Their leaders? What about the people of Japan? Shouldn't they also be given the opportunity to know the destruction that awaits, perhaps they would have overthrown their leaders? How do you get this to them? How do you impress upon them the utter destruction? If they still refuse is it really ethical to drop a nuclear bomb? Is it ever? Is war a series of ethical decisions?

Shouldn't Japan have told us they would blow up pearl harbor before doing it? Should they have shown the chinese footage of rape, murder, and bizarre medical experiments before invading?

I am not trying to justify the use of two nuclear bombs to end WWII and don't think one can. Is there really going to be a set procedure for ethically using nuclear weapons? What about napalm or mustard gas? Do we as a society want to find ways to ethically murder people in war? War forces unethical choices and the very fact that it was so horrific is one of the main reasons they haven't been used since. If we could sit back and say, as a society, you can use nuclear weapons and it is within our ethical boundaries we steer ourselves to a very steep cliff in my opinion.

What is important is that we do grasp ethics and we understand that the use of those bombs is outside of our normal ethical boundaries. The people who made that choice were not unethical and were more or less forced to make a lot of choices that lie outside our moral boundaries in order to preserve a more rigid moral compass through out the world.

Historian Chalmers Johnson writes

It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

You can honestly say that we were the least ethical of combatants in WWII because we used nuclear weapons?

[bignickel]

Another problem with these kinds of discussions is the perception that Japanese were 'beat', pushed back to their island, and just needed a little prodding to get them to surrender.

Because the Allies had 'island-hopped' all the way Okinawa, and were doing daily bombing runs, people tend to think that the Japanese had been pushed all the way back to their island. I certainly used to think this. But what they don't know, and I didn't, was that the Japanese had control and troops in large parts of China and Southeast Asia. And that 100,000 Chinese were dying each month in the last year of the war ("Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire", Richard B Frank). Every month the Japanese delayed the inevitable, while Chinese were dying.

[Corsair 115]

Another problem with these kinds of discussions is the perception that Japanese were 'beat', pushed back to their island, and just needed a little prodding to get them to surrender.


It depends on the defintion of "beat." Japan was beaten in the practical sense in that it clearly had no chance of winning the war by the start of 1945, and probably well before that. It was not beaten in the technical sense in that it had not yet surrendered and thus hostilities continued.

[bignickel]

Thus the use of "beat" in my special 'beat' quotes.

For discussing The English Beat, I'll have to come up with some entirely different...

[Safe-Keeper]

Shouldn't Japan have told us they would blow up pearl harbor before doing it?That was the idea, according to, I think, Tora, Tora, Tora. The Japanese embassy in the US was in the progress of writing (or translating) the declaration of war for then to send it to the American government, but due to the poor typing skills of the embassy's employees, the declaration didn't go out until after the first wave of fighters.

There's also, of course, the fact Pearl Harbour was not a civilian target.

[moon1969]

So it was just a coincidence that the Soviet Union invasion of Manchuria started on August 9 1945 the same day USA dropped the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki? :D

[Silly Green Monkey]

There's also, of course, the fact Pearl Harbour was not a civilian target.

Neither was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A civilian population being present does not negate the military value of a place. I live in Colorado Springs, home of three bases, the Air Force Academy, and NORAD, do you think any number of us civilians can take the city off the hit list?

[Toke]

I think hamburg were classified as a military target due to all the factory workers living there.
Target status seem to be a flexible thing.

[Safe-Keeper]

Neither was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A civilian population being present does not negate the military value of a place. I live in Colorado Springs, home of three bases, the Air Force Academy, and NORAD, do you think any number of us civilians can take the city off the hit list? Yes.

The existence of military targets in a city does not make the city itself a military target. Civilians are civilians.

[Rich_C]

Yes.

The existence of military targets in a city does not make the city itself a military target. Civilians are civilians.

According to international law, you are wrong.

[drkitten]

The existence of military targets in a city does not make the city itself a military target.

Actually, no.

The existence of military targets in a city is exactly what makes the city itself a military target. In fact, under international law (for the past two hundred years or so), that's more or less the primary reason that a city can be a military target.

[Khonshu]

You left off political, transportation, communication, and manufacturing centers - any of those can make an area a military target.

Political - cut off the head & leave the troops in disarray
Transportation - cut the infrastructure and they can't move or supply their troops (Americans have excelled at this since the Civil War)
Communications - See Baghdad - if communications can be cut, the ability to respond to attacks or launch an offensive is severely hampered
Manufacturing - well, if they can't make weapons or produce needed supplies, it's difficult to resist effectively for very long. This also applies to the people doing the manufacturing...

In a total war, I think one could make the case that there is no such thing as a civilian target.

[bignickel]

Not to mention that the Japanese government had inducted every Japanese civilian into the defense of the nation... thus making the only 'citizens' in Japan foreigners. By doing that the Japanese government was responsible for all 'former civilian' deaths that occured from that point on.

As Corsair pointed out, Japan was 'beat' in every way you can think of... they just wouldn't surrender. And 100,000 Chinese a month were dying because of it, not to mention the people of Japan in air raids, starvation, disease, etc. Even after all the bombs (both conventional and atomic), mining of their harbors, destruction of their fleets, the government still didn't want to surrender.

[Biscuit]

That was the idea, according to, I think, Tora, Tora, Tora. The Japanese embassy in the US was in the progress of writing (or translating) the declaration of war for then to send it to the American government, but due to the poor typing skills of the embassy's employees, the declaration didn't go out until after the first wave of fighters.

There's also, of course, the fact Pearl Harbour was not a civilian target.


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Do not base history on hollywood. I can only imagine you think that Cuba Gooding Jr was the hero of pearl harbor.:rolleyes:

I will provide you with a link to a December 8th article from the Guardian newspaper. Not only did Japan not declare war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor but they also attacked the city of Honolulu, clearly a civilian target.

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1940-1949/Story/0,,127505,00.html

[Biscuit]

So it was just a coincidence that the Soviet Union invasion of Manchuria started on August 9 1945 the same day USA dropped the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki? :D

I am not quite sure what your point is, please expand upon this.

Did Russia want a piece of Japan? You bet they did! They had a bit of a bone to pick after the fledgling Japanese Army humiliated the Russians about 40 years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

[drkitten]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Do not base history on hollywood. I can only imagine you think that Cuba Gooding Jr was the hero of pearl harbor.:rolleyes:

I will provide you with a link to a December 8th article from the Guardian newspaper. Not only did Japan not declare war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor but they also attacked the city of Honolulu, clearly a civilian target.

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1940-1949/Story/0,,127505,00.html



I'm not sure if you're serious or not..... Would you like me to dissect your post? There has been a lot more scholarly research done since a 1941 newspaper article.

[drkitten]

You left off political, transportation, communication, and manufacturing centers - any of those can make an area a military target.

Political - cut off the head & leave the troops in disarray
Transportation - cut the infrastructure and they can't move or supply their troops (Americans have excelled at this since the Civil War)
Communications - See Baghdad - if communications can be cut, the ability to respond to attacks or launch an offensive is severely hampered
Manufacturing - well, if they can't make weapons or produce needed supplies, it's difficult to resist effectively for very long. This also applies to the people doing the manufacturing...

In a total war, I think one could make the case that there is no such thing as a civilian target.

.... and this is one of the ethical problems that has arisen since WWII, because under the same international laws that make cities-with-military-HQ legitimate targets, mere "communications centers" are not.

More accurately, the city surrounding a military base is, de jure, a legitimate military target.

The city surrounding a communications hub or a railway junction is not. Assessment of collateral damage can be tricky in such cases, and armed forces are expected to take reasonable steps to prevent collateral damage. But even there, "reasonable steps" doesn't mean "don't attack" --- it can be as simple as "attack at night when (most of) the workers aren't there."

[Biscuit]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not..... Would you like me to dissect your post? There has been a lot more scholarly research done since a 1941 newspaper article.

Yes I am being serious. Are you being serious about 'dissecting' a two line post? I am certain that Cuba was in the movie Pearl Harbor so I assume you are going to state that Japan formally declared war on the U.S. and informed us of it with enough time for us to prepare to defend Pearl Harbor. Am I right?

I can only find that they declared war on December 7th. All the historical evidence I can find points to the actual attack being the Japanese notifying the U.S. that we were now at war. If I am wrong then I would love to be educated.

I have seen conspiracy theories that state we knew all along and let it happen but I have never seen any credible evidence for this.

In closing I provide you with a section of FDR's speech to congress in which he asked for war to be declared,

I want to drop nuclear bombs on two japanese cities in a cruel and inhumane experiment because I like killing people. Lets go attack Japan!!!

Just kidding here is the actual quote.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.


Perhaps this is too much of a derail, new thread anyone?

[drkitten]

I assume you are going to state that Japan formally declared war on the U.S. and informed us of it with enough time for us to prepare to defend Pearl Harbor. Am I right?

Close. That was, in fact, Japan's intention.

The declaration of war was sent on December 6th (http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/center_crypt_history/pearl_harbor_review/pearl_harbor.shtml) to the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C. It was (as was standard practice at the time) encrypted in a system that the American cryptographers called "Purple" and was called "Magic" by the people who distributed the decrypts. It was sent as a 14-part message and was intercepted at Bainbridge Island and sent to Washington D.C. at about 3am DC local time.

Roosevelt had the decrypted message in his hands by about 9am Washington Time, which would have been about 4am -- about four and a half hours before the attack -- Pearl time.

The Japanese message was very clear that Ambassador Kurusu had to deliver the message on or before 1pm on Dec 7, 1941. This would have been a little before the bombs were falling at Pearl, thereby technically not making it a surprise attack. But, as Safe-keeper described it, the typists at the embassy weren't good enough and the Ambassador was forced to delay his message by an hour.

Page 200 of this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=9wqkVBuiCgEC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=pearl+harbor+magic+decrypts&source=web&ots=o73Ncsx1Ee&sig=jRwo8zY_m9EqkNoetChzQg1D6EM&hl=en&ei=4WGLSbDOGJqWsAOkz_2vBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA200,M1) has some further details.



I can only find that they declared war on December 7th. All the historical evidence I can find points to the actual attack being the Japanese notifying the U.S. that we were now at war. If I am wrong then I would love to be educated.

I have seen conspiracy theories that state we knew all along and let it happen but I have never seen any credible evidence for this.

The problem is that FDR wasn't able to do anything with the message. Radio communication with Hawai'i was extremely spotty in the 1940s, and extremely insecure. There were no transpacific cables along which the message could be sent. The fastest form of "secure" communications with Pearl was to use a telegram to California and then fly it on a plane(!)
Even the four hours warning that the cryptologists had stolen wasn't enough to get a warning message through to Admiral Kimmel -- especially since Kimmel had received three explicit warnings a few weeks earlier that war was expected imminently. (Which, in retrospect, is enough for me to believe that his court-martial for dereliction of duty was entirely justified.)

So it's actually true that we "knew all along," if by "all along" you mean "got a few hours warning that we couldn't do anything with 'cause the USA is just too damn big."

[Chaos]

What difference would insecure communications make, in this case?

Assuming FDR had a radio message sent out openly to Hawaii that went: "Japanese attack to come this morning. Get ready for battle NOW!", and the Japanese had indeed intercepted it, what would have happened?

[drkitten]

What difference would insecure communications make, in this case?

Assuming FDR had a radio message sent out openly to Hawaii that went: "Japanese attack to come this morning. Get ready for battle NOW!", and the Japanese had indeed intercepted it, what would have happened?

The Japanese would have known that we were capable of breaking their codes.

Given that codebreaking was more or less the only reason we were able to win the battle of the Coral Sea, and later the Battle of Midway, it's not an advantage to be thrown away lightly. It's also the only reason we were able to ambush and kill Admiral Yamamoto. The Japanese also carried out a lot of high-level strategic discussion by radio with Germany, discussion that we were able to read continuously until the end of the war and that helped guide our strategy.

Sir Harry Hinsley suggested, quite seriously, that the Allied cryptographic effort was the second most important factor in the success of the war effort, second only to the Bomb.

[Biscuit]

DrKitten,

That was a very interesting article and web page in general, I think I will be reading a lot of articles.

However, in my first post I posed the rhetorical question, "should Japan have told us they would bomb pearl harbor before doing it?" This was, of course, in response to the argument that dropping nuclear weapons would have been more ethical had we told the Japanese about nuclear weapons and given them a demonstration.

The first response to this was that they did, based on the movie Tora Tora Tora. Your expansion on this is without question much more illuminating, thank you.

None of this changes the fact that although the embassy was told to cease negotiations and inform the U.S. that Japan was declaring war, no one from Japan told the U.S. they would shortly be bombing pearl harbor. In fact from reading the article you linked to I learned that while people at COMINT expected an attack they were surprised about the location of the attack. Furthermore the Japanese knew the U.S. was monitoring their communications and deliberately made it appear as though ships that were sailing to attack Pearl Harbor were actually in home waters near Japan.

I do stand corrected about the 14 piece message and the actual delivery of that message but that message had nothing to do with an attack on Pearl Harbor. So my statement that Japan did not warn us about pearl harbor is correct. As is my statement that the actual attack came before the Japanese told us that they were declaring war. It only came from the Japanese late due to technical problems but none the less it was later than the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Also it was clearly not the intent of the Japanese to allow us to prepare for a specific attack anywhere. Their only intent was to tell us we would now be at war on the same day they intended to unleash a sneak attack that was months in the planning.

[dudalb]

I just have to point out that at no time did the decoded Japanese messages indicate exactly where the attack was to take place. There is no way Roosevelt could have sent out a message specifically warning Pearl Harbor. In face, the intial attack was expected in the Phlippines. As one of the admirals said after the war, "We never thought they would have the nerve to come that far East".

[drkitten]

DrKitten,

That was a very interesting article and web page in general, I think I will be reading a lot of articles.

It's an absolutely fascinating topic. If you're interested in the history of cryptography and of this incident in general, I can recommend no better source than David Kahn's The Codebreakers, although it's getting hard to find -- and you can have my copy when you pry it out of my cold dead hands and then snatch it from my dozens of students who will be trying exactly the same thing.



None of this changes the fact that although the embassy was told to cease negotiations and inform the U.S. that Japan was declaring war, no one from Japan told the U.S. they would shortly be bombing pearl harbor. In fact from reading the article you linked to I learned that while people at COMINT expected an attack they were surprised about the location of the attack. Furthermore the Japanese knew the U.S. was monitoring their communications and deliberately made it appear as though ships that were sailing to attack Pearl Harbor were actually in home waters near Japan.

This is correct and -- except, of course, for the fact that the warning was not delivered in timely fashion -- a legitimate ruse of war.

There is another key difference that is of interest that has not been fully explored. Pearl Harbor is, as you know, a military and naval base. Hiroshima (like Honolulu) is a city; I believe in both cases they fulfill the traditional definition of a "fortified city" (a city with attached military units and defenses).

There are some simple rules for attacking a fortified city. You need to warn the city before you trash it, in order to give the military forces a chance to surrender the city by retreat (or by surrender, but of course that rarely happens). If this happens -- if the defender "unfortifies" the city, you can't touch it.. Breaking a window in an unfortified city is technically a war crime.

If you've warned the defender, and he doesn't surrender the city, then the city itself is fair game and you can raze it to the ground, grind the ashes to powder, and snort it through a rolled-up twenty.

A purely military establishment -- like Pearl -- doesn't need to be warned. But the attacker, in this case, needs to take reasonable precautions not to damage any nearby civilian establishments (like the city of Honolulu).

Hiroshima, as I said, was a fortified city; the entire command/control center for Southern Honshu was in the center of town. (So, I believe, was Nagasaki, although I can't tell you offhand what military units were there -- but just the AA guns are enough to "fortify" it.) The US had been doing a months-long leaflet campaign all up and down the Japanese coast letting people know that areas were subject to bombing, so literally months of warning had been given.

As a warned, unsurrendered, fortified city, Hiroshima was Marshall's to do with as he liked. The only thing that kept him grinding the ashes to radioactive powder and snorting them was an absence of a large enough twenty.

[ddt]

So it was just a coincidence that the Soviet Union invasion of Manchuria started on August 9 1945 the same day USA dropped the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki? :D

It started on August 8th. And yes, coincidence. At Potsdam, the Soviets had agreed to take part in the war against Japan within 3 months of the German surrender.

[Biscuit]

I have read the book, "The Code Book" by Simon Singh. This covers cryptography from ancient egypt to 'pretty good protection'. I can recommend this book to anyone as well.

Things always get confusing when people answer rhetorical questions! Thank you for the information.

edit to add and get back on track: I have no problem, other than the tragic loss of life, with the way Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It was a legitimate military target. I also have no problem, other than the tragic loss of life, with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both Pearl Harbor and the U.S. actions were unethical but deemed necessary for the survival of the nation. This was the point I was trying to make in my first post in this thread that was in response to the notion that telling the Japanese about nuclear bombs would have made the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 'ethical'. I don't see how or why anyone would want to make the use of nuclear weapons a moral or ethical action.

[Corsair 115]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Do not base history on hollywood. I can only imagine you think that Cuba Gooding Jr was the hero of pearl harbor.


Let's not confuse 1970's Tora! Tora! Tora! with 2001's Pearl Harbor. Two completely different movies. The former is a reasonably historically accurate account of the Pearl Harbor attack, while the latter is, well, best forgotten.


I will provide you with a link to a December 8th article from the Guardian newspaper. Not only did Japan not declare war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor but they also attacked the city of Honolulu, clearly a civilian target.


From what I recall reading, many years back, in a book about the Pearl Harbor raid was that there was some damage done in Honolulu. However, this was not caused by Japanese bombs but rather by American 5-inch anti-aircraft shells which failed to detonate in the air and when they came back down to earth in the city they subsequently exploded. There were several such instances, but the damage caused by these wayward shells was relatively minor. Caveat: I don't know if in fact that actually happened, but I do remember reading about it.


But even there, "reasonable steps" doesn't mean "don't attack" --- it can be as simple as "attack at night when (most of) the workers aren't there."


Of course, from the aerial bombing perspective of WWII, attacking by night meant sacrificing accuracy, meaning you had to flatten more of the city to be certain of hitting the things you really wanted to hit.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Do not base history on hollywood. I can only imagine you think that Cuba Gooding Jr was the hero of pearl harbor.:rolleyes:



Actually, the character played by Cuba Gooding jr. , Doris "Dorie" Miller, was one of the "heroes of Pearl Harbor".
Just for the record :).


www . history . navy . mil/faqs/faq57-4 . htm

[Biscuit]

Actually, the character played by Cuba Gooding jr. , Doris "Dorie" Miller, was one of the "heroes of Pearl Harbor".
Just for the record :).


www . history . navy . mil/faqs/faq57-4 . htm


So does that mean that Mel Gibson fought and died for scottish independence?

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

So does that mean that Mel Gibson fought and died for scottish independence?


Hmm... no. Just wanted to point out that the Cuba-Gooding-jr.-part is based on fact and is not some "token black dude" - romanticism.
Maybe I misunderstood you :)

[drkitten]

I have read the book, "The Code Book" by Simon Singh. This covers cryptography from ancient egypt to 'pretty good protection'. I can recommend this book to anyone as well.

"Pretty Good Privacy." Not "Protection."

But yes, an excellent read.

[a_unique_person]

Yes, ethically that would have been a more humane action. However, based on what actually happened, we can assume that it would not have made one bit of difference.

Hindsight is great, but ethically, they should have been given a chance to know what was coming.

[dtugg]

Ethically, the right thing to do was end the war as quickly as possible. And that is exactly what they did. They only had two nukes at the time, and they weren't even positive that Little Boy would work, so it's not like they were in a position to go around giving demonstrations even if that was a good idea.

[Biscuit]

Hindsight is great, but ethically, they should have been given a chance to know what was coming.

How would that make dropping a nuclear weapon a more ethical action?

Are you equally critical of the Japanese leaders for not surrendering after the first bomb, a demonstration if you will, and letting their people be bombed a second time? I think that is an even less ethical action.

Furthermore why do we want to make a set of parameters in which using nuclear weapons is ethical?

[shawmutt]

Why is it that folks concentrate on the nuclear bombings and ignore the much more deadly fire bombings of Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II)? It's like the word noo-clear makes it ripe for conspiracy or something.

You know, my college physics teacher was a real hard ass all year, tough guy with a Pittsburgh demeanor. The dude was almost in tears as he recounted his experience in Okinawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Civilian_losses) (a segue from nuclear physics), and he gave a pretty good reason why the sudden violent bombings of two cities was preferable to an extended invasion of Japan.

eta: I love this site, I just reread the whole thread and realized I repeated what was already said :D

[MG1962]

So it's actually true that we "knew all along," if by "all along" you mean "got a few hours warning that we couldn't do anything with 'cause the USA is just too damn big."

Well planners had always considered Pearl as at extreme risk ever since the rainbow plans were drawn up in the early 30's. One of the main motivations for transfering the fleet from the west coast to Pearl was to try and convince an attack would be too expensive.

Unfortunately rather than discourage, this made Pearl even more attractive to the Japanese. Originally The Japanese wanted to destroy the infrastructure at the base, especially the new dry dock, and ship destruction was not part of the equation. However the presence of the fleet distracted planners, and although significant ship loss occured, the big oil tank farms on Ford Island etc remained untouched.

Given the progress of the war after the attack, I am sure the Japanese realised they should have stuck to their orginal plan

[Corsair 115]

Given the progress of the war after the attack, I am sure the Japanese realised they should have stuck to their orginal plan


From what I remember reading, the main point of the attack was to sink the U.S. aircraft carriers, and after that, put the battleships out of commission. I don't recall ever reading that base infrastructure was a stated target of the attack. If it was, why would Nagumo be allowed to withdraw after attacking the battleships, as he did? I think the air staff requested a third wave to assault the port facilities, but Nagumo overruled them as it wasn't specifically part of the mission.

[MG1962]

From what I remember reading, the main point of the attack was to sink the U.S. aircraft carriers, and after that, put the battleships out of commission. I don't recall ever reading that base infrastructure was a stated target of the attack. If it was, why would Nagumo be allowed to withdraw after attacking the battleships, as he did? I think the air staff requested a third wave to assault the port facilities, but Nagumo overruled them as it wasn't specifically part of the mission.

Sorry I did not explain that well. You are right the IJN conducted the mission as directed. However the final plan was not decided till March 41. Planning began in Feb 39' At this stage I believe it was intended for an actual invasion

Yamamoto's orginal plan was ready in Jan 40. However the movement of the US Pacific fleet in the summer and the Taranto raid in the Nov, gave Yamamoto cause to go back to scratch, which he did in Jan and Feb 41'

If I had a better memory I could remember the developement time for the torpedos to be shallow launched as well. The shallowness of the water had always been considered one of Pearls greatest assets.

[Toke]

Belive the british developed the shallow torpedo tecnique for use against the italians in ww1.

The us navy got some flak for not having paid attention to that.

[MG1962]

Belive the british developed the shallow torpedo tecnique for use against the italians in ww1.

The us navy got some flak for not having paid attention to that.

Yeah it was one area the US navy was positively defective. Although they caught up a bit as the war went on, they never got close to the Type 92 Long Lance torpedo

I also checked the torpedo bombers for Pearl they used a Type 91 mark 2 that Wiki suggests only came on line in April 1941

[kookbreaker]

Belive the british developed the shallow torpedo tecnique for use against the italians in ww1.


That was early WW2, in WW1 Italy was an ally of Britain.

[Toke]

Yes, found it, my fault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

It involved putting wooden fins and nosecones on the torpedoes.

[Ove]

Yes, found it, my fault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

It involved putting wooden fins and nosecones on the torpedoes.

But you are right in that US Navy completely ignored the lessons learnt from the Taranto Raid and stuck to the idea that the navy was safe at Pearl Harbor because of the relatively shallow water. At the Taranto raid a mere handfull of very obsolete bi-planes sank or damaged a large portion of the Italian navy and it was a huge blunder not to learn from that. The japs were quick to learn.

[MG1962]

But you are right in that US Navy completely ignored the lessons learnt from the Taranto Raid and stuck to the idea that the navy was safe at Pearl Harbor because of the relatively shallow water. At the Taranto raid a mere handfull of very obsolete bi-planes sank or damaged a large portion of the Italian navy and it was a huge blunder not to learn from that. The japs were quick to learn.

It was one of the factors that actually added to their success. I recall reading survivor accounts of when they attacked the Bismark. All the AA guns were calibrated to shoot at craft flying twice the Swordfish attack speed, which IIRC was some ridiculous speed like 180 miles an hour

[costa]

the &^^%$Japanese would not surender uncoditionaly.they wanted it their way.we should have put their emperor on trail with all the war criminals.one of their ministers won their election bragging how he ate the liver on their pows.

[Lonewulf]

the &^^%$Japanese would not surender uncoditionaly.they wanted it their way.we should have put their emperor on trail with all the war criminals.one of their ministers won their election bragging how he ate the liver on their pows.

Errr... welcome to the forums.

I never heard of this "liver" thing... in fact, I was led into believing that the emperor was pushed by his own military.

[Roadtoad]

the &^^%$Japanese would not surender uncoditionaly.they wanted it their way.we should have put their emperor on trail with all the war criminals.one of their ministers won their election bragging how he ate the liver on their pows.

Evidence?

Geez, where's Claus when you need him.

[Corsair 115]

I recall reading survivor accounts of when they attacked the Bismark. All the AA guns were calibrated to shoot at craft flying twice the Swordfish attack speed, which IIRC was some ridiculous speed like 180 miles an hour


The Bismarck also had a relatively small AA suite of sixteen 4.1" guns along with sixteen 37mm and twelve 20mm cannon. That's not much, especially when U.S. experience in the Pacific later demonstrated just how many anti-aircraft guns were needed to have a good chance of disrupting an aerial attack.

[Dave Rogers]

It was one of the factors that actually added to their success. I recall reading survivor accounts of when they attacked the Bismark. All the AA guns were calibrated to shoot at craft flying twice the Swordfish attack speed, which IIRC was some ridiculous speed like 180 miles an hour

Even less than that - the Swordfish had an official maximum speed of 138mph clean, and wouldn't have been able to manage that with a torpedo. In the attack on the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen in the Channel, the Germanfighters had to lower their undercarriage so that the extra drag would stop them overshooting the Swordfish.

I've read accounts of Swordfish operating from escort carriers on the Russian convoys. They could fly so slowly that they could match speed with a carrier steaming into the wind, then just wait for the stern to rise on a wave and cut power when the deck came up to their wheels. It meant they could fly in weather that would keep anything else on the deck.

Dave

[Ove]

Even less than that - the Swordfish had an official maximum speed of 138mph clean, and wouldn't have been able to manage that with a torpedo. In the attack on the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen in the Channel, the Germanfighters had to lower their undercarriage so that the extra drag would stop them overshooting the Swordfish.

I've read accounts of Swordfish operating from escort carriers on the Russian convoys. They could fly so slowly that they could match speed with a carrier steaming into the wind, then just wait for the stern to rise on a wave and cut power when the deck came up to their wheels. It meant they could fly in weather that would keep anything else on the deck.

Dave

Yep the "Stringbag" was a formidable aeroplane ond the only "massacre" on Swordfish was during the Channel Dash when they encountered land based fighters. In general they did good but that was because they mostly only had AA to worry about and as you rightly pointed out anything above 4-5" guns are useless as AA but that was a lesson learned late.


Here's more about the "Stringbag" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

[Roadtoad]

Yep the "Stringbag" was a formidable aeroplane ond the only "massacre" on Swordfish was during the Channel Dash when they encountered land based fighters. In general they did good but that was because they mostly only had AA to worry about and as you rightly pointed out anything above 4-5" guns are useless as AA but that was a lesson learned late.


Here's more about the "Stringbag" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

Personally, I prefer the DeHavilland Mosquito. But, that's a personal preference.

(Frankly, if I had the money, the time, and the expertise, not to mention a set of the plans, I wouldn't mind building one.)

[MG1962]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

Personally, I prefer the DeHavilland Mosquito. But, that's a personal preference.

(Frankly, if I had the money, the time, and the expertise, not to mention a set of the plans, I wouldn't mind building one.)

Yes the Mosquito was an elegant aircraft, and exceptionally good at the tasks it undertook

[Doubt]

Had they left us alone, it's highly unlikely that we'd have entered the war at all because Roosevelt wouldn't have had the support, even as England was fighting for its very survival. Much of the history of WWII has been edited, and the reason for the dropping of the bombs is omitted from Japanese classrooms. We are not helped by American celebrities showing up on August 6th in Hiroshima, weeping with the Japanese, while failing to remind them of the reason for the war in the first place. It's insulting to the Americans who fought WWII, and to the memory of those Japanese who fought as well.


I will take issue with this one. The US was already involved in military operations against Japan before Pearl Harbor. The American Volunteer Group, AKA, The Flying Tigers, were paid for and supplied by the US. We had the latest American planes flown by American pilots flying against Japan to keep the Burma road open. They were paid for and supplied by the US.

Add to that the oil embargo imposed by FDR and it is pretty clear that we were baiting the Japanese. Granted, Japan deserved a lot worse than we were doing to them at the time. But our hands were not clean and we were pushing them hard.

[Roadtoad]

I'll answer when the DB is fixed.

Short answer: Yes.

[Dave Rogers]

I will take issue with this one. The US was already involved in military operations against Japan before Pearl Harbor. The American Volunteer Group, AKA, The Flying Tigers, were paid for and supplied by the US. We had the latest American planes flown by American pilots flying against Japan to keep the Burma road open. They were paid for and supplied by the US.

There is an incredibly common misconception that the Flying Tigers were fighting in China prior to Pear Harbor. The actual date of the first combat operation of the 1st American Volunteer Group was 20th December 1941, shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack. The US was involved in recruiting, training and equipping the Flying Tigers prior to Pearl Harbor, funding this by various roundabout and clandestine means, but not in direct military action. It's more than a stretch to suggest, therefore, that they were an example of direct provocation against the Japanese.

Dave

[Doubt]

There is an incredibly common misconception that the Flying Tigers were fighting in China prior to Pear Harbor. The actual date of the first combat operation of the 1st American Volunteer Group was 20th December 1941, shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack. The US was involved in recruiting, training and equipping the Flying Tigers prior to Pearl Harbor, funding this by various roundabout and clandestine means, but not in direct military action. It's more than a stretch to suggest, therefore, that they were an example of direct provocation against the Japanese.

Dave

I just checked an you are correct about the combat date. I did not know that.

Now what I don't have time to look for right now is when did the Japanese become aware of their presence.

[Dave Rogers]

Now what I don't have time to look for right now is when did the Japanese become aware of their presence.

I've read an account from a Japanese survivor of the December 20th raid intercepted by the AVG, in which he said he was aware of rumours that there was an American fighter unit based in China. If rumours had percolated down to the aircrews, that suggests that there had been knowledge at a higher level for some time. On the other hand, the AVG was very strictly a defensive force, using short-range fighters for bomber interception, and never had any realistic offensive capability. Does that really constitute provocation, in any logic but that of the playground bully?

Dave

[Doubt]

On the other hand, the AVG was very strictly a defensive force, using short-range fighters for bomber interception, and never had any realistic offensive capability. Does that really constitute provocation, in any logic but that of the playground bully?

Dave

Yes, it does constitute provocation. Inserting military forces into a conflict is going to provoke some sort of response. Bully analogy aside, no response would be an unreasonable expectation. That does not justify Imperial Japans actions, but some sort of reaction is to be expected.

Insert long discussion about Japanese desire for oil in Southeast asia here. (Another big motivator for starting the war.)

[/end derail]?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Seems to me it was a vicious end to a vicious war. But really no more vicious than the actions of any of the other major counties involved in the conflicts. Attacking civilians seems to have been a popular trend during WWII by just about everyone involved. Our post modern world may have huge problems but hopefully we will never see warfare on this scale again.

LLH

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, it does constitute provocation. Inserting military forces into a conflict is going to provoke some sort of response.

OK, fair point. Care was always taken, though, that the AVG was strictly deniable; pilots had officially left the US forces, planes were supplied on a cash-and-carry basis from a batch produced to meet a British order, chain of command was entirely within the Chinese Air Force. So, even if the AVG had commenced operations before PH, Japan would have had to make a moral rather than a legalistic case for retaliation against the USA, as the AVG were legally speaking (as I understand it) mercenaries working for the Chinese rather than American servicemen. It's a moot point in the circumstances though.

Dave

[Doubt]

Seems to me it was a vicious end to a vicious war. But really no more vicious than the actions of any of the other major counties involved in the conflicts. Attacking civilians seems to have been a popular trend during WWII by just about everyone involved. Our post modern world may have huge problems but hopefully we will never see warfare on this scale again.

LLH

I am not sure the post modern trend is any better. Instead of industrial based warfare on a global scale we now get continuous smaller scale regional conflicts that are very nasty and very cruel to the civilians in the middle. Often the local conflicts have evolved into proxy wars between larger countries. The combined death tolls of such wars may be less than any year in WWII, but the length and number of ongoing conflicts are an equalizing factor.

[Corsair 115]

Attacking civilians seems to have been a popular trend during WWII by just about everyone involved.


Civilians have been either a direct and indirect target in warfare throughout most of human history, not just during WWII.