"Dumb and Dumber"- Are Americans hostile to knowledge?

[head-case]

I don't find the statement arrogant.  It was the practical philosophy that Patton wanted to instill in his troops.  I find it more relevant that the Red Army inflicted more casualties on the Nazi regime than the western allies.  However, the huge losses by the Soviet Union indicate the brutality of the Nazi regime and the extent to which the Soviets were unprepared (which is presumably related to Stalin's pact with Hitler).

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear attacks were made because military planners thought a quick end to the war would circumvent the enormous bloodshed that would come from an invasion of Japan itself.  Given the numbers that were slain by the Japanese in Asia before and during the war (and their treatment of prisoners of war) I don't see that they are in a position to complain about the numbers lost in these attacks.

Well, the number was mentioned in by-the-way manner.

What about the arrogant statement...Maybe Mr.Patton is right, but sometimes people die for their fatherland having no time to think of strategies, especially when the enemy is treading the land and killing women and children.
I wonder how the Japanese felt when Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been bombarded with nuclear weapons. "Poor dumb bastards" are still struggling with consequences.

Stalin was evil, true.

[MishaK]

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear attacks were made because military planners thought a quick end to the war would circumvent the enormous bloodshed that would come from an invasion of Japan itself.  Given the numbers that were slain by the Japanese in Asia before and during the war (and their treatment of prisoners of war) I don't see that they are in a position to complain about the numbers lost in these attacks.

Mmmm... almost... The actual reason was that they sought to prevent the entry into the Pacific Theater by the Soviet Union, which was regrouping afte finishing off Hitler and had already entered the Korean peninsula. The Japanese were toast already. Think about it. If you want someone to surrender, do you drop a second bomb before the enemy even has a chance to consider surrender? Fact of the matter is that the Japanese cabinet was just in the process of approving the uncondictional surrender as the Nagasaki bomb was being dropped. These were dropped to end the war before the Soviets entered and in order to impress the Soviets to keep their distance.

[head-case]

Mmmm... almost... The actual reason was that they sought to prevent the entry into the Pacific Theater by the Soviet Union, which was regrouping afte finishing off Hitler and had already entered the Korean peninsula. The Japanese were toast already. Think about it. If you want someone to surrender, do you drop a second bomb before the enemy even has a chance to consider surrender? Fact of the matter is that the Japanese cabinet was just in the process of approving the uncondictional surrender as the Nagasaki bomb was being dropped. These were dropped to end the war before the Soviets entered and in order to impress the Soviets to keep their distance.

Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.  Whether they were concerned with avoiding an invasion or preventing the Soviets from getting involved, their goal was still to induce a quick Japanese surrender.  The strategy would have been the same in either case.  The alleged rushing of the second bomb doesn't distinguish between the two motivations (which seem equally valid, in any case).  The rushing of the second bomb may have been to create the impression that there was a limitless supply of these devices at our disposal, when there were only two available.

[MishaK]

The rushing of the second bomb may have been to create the impression that there was a limitless supply of these devices at our disposal, when there were only two available.

Exactly. Which is far more important an impression to make on the Soviets than on an enemy that is basically crushed already.

In any case, the issue isn't whether the Japanese behavior in Asia is such that they are in "no position to complain" about the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's again Sau'ls two-wrongs-make-a-right logic. The point is that these bombs were dropped on civilian populations. The question of what crimes the Japanese military committed in Asia is irrelevant to the moral culpability of those who decided to drop the bomb.

[bwv 1080]

Exactly. Which is far more important an impression to make on the Soviets than on an enemy that is basically crushed already.

In any case, the issue isn't whether the Japanese behavior in Asia is such that they are in "no position to complain" about the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's again Sauls two wrongs make a right logic. The point is that these bombs were dropped on civilian populations. The question of what crimes the Japanese military committed in Asia is irrelevant to the moral culpability of those who decided to drop the bomb.

Yeah but in the context of previous firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden (each of which killed more people than either A-bomb) dropping another nuke or two on Japan was not something in the context of the war that should have been a moral quandry for anyone involved.  The Japanese had a chance to surrender after Hiroshima and they declined to do so.

[head-case]

Exactly. Which is far more important an impression to make on the Soviets than on an enemy that is basically crushed already.

In any case, the issue isn't whether the Japanese behavior in Asia is such that they are in "no position to complain" about the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's again Sau'ls two-wrongs-make-a-right logic. The point is that these bombs were dropped on civilian populations. The question of what crimes the Japanese military committed in Asia is irrelevant to the moral culpability of those who decided to drop the bomb.

They were in no position to complain because their society had been transformed into a genocidal death machine which had to be stopped at all costs.   I see no distinction between civilian and non civilian here.  The US soldiers who would have had to participate in an invasion of Japan would have like to have been civilians, they didn't have a choice.  In the end, the number lost in the nuclear attacks is dwarfed by the number of civians the Japanese slaughtered throughout Asia and would have continued to slaughter if not confronted by the US.  I have no problem with the people who made that decision.  I feel sorry for them for having been given that responsibility.

[MishaK]

Yeah but in the context of previous firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden (each of which killed more people than either A-bomb) dropping another nuke or two on Japan was not something in the context of the war that should have been a moral quandry for anyone involved.  The Japanese had a chance to surrender after Hiroshima and they declined to do so.

That is factually untrue. The Japanese cabinet was in the process of making precisely that decision when the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitously dropped. In fact there were even diplomatic overtures prior to Hiroshima, but their precise intent is unclear. But the Japanese certainly did not have much time to first comprehend what had happened in Hiroshima and then react appropriately before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.

Besides, that is a truly morally warped argument to say that because the allies had already firebombed Dresden and Tokyo another nuke or two won't make a difference, we're all going to meet Satan anyway.

They were in no position to complain because their society had been transformed into a genocidal death machine which had to be stopped at all costs.   I see no distinction between civilian and non civilian here.  The US soldiers who would have had to participate in an invasion of Japan would have like to have been civilians, they didn't have a choice.  In the end, the number lost in the nuclear attacks is dwarfed by the number of civians the Japanese slaughtered throughout Asia and would have continued to slaughter if not confronted by the US.  I have no problem with the people who made that decision.  I feel sorry for them for having been given that responsibility.

The highlighted bits are the problems with your moral logic here. Your failure to see the distinction between civilians who have done nothing except being born into the wrong society at the wrong time makes you no better than your presumed enemy. (BTW, re: genocidal death machine? Are you sure you're talking about Japan here, not Germany? Which genocide precisely?) Playing the numbers game is a Stalinist exercise (one death a tragedy, a million a statistic) and puts you squarely in Saul-land. You seem to think two wrongs make a right. You don't understand that by stooping to your enemy's moral level you lose the high ground. The fundamental issue here is that there was no military need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, two militarily irrelevant targets (except that the river delta in which Hiroshima was located made an excellent testing ground for measuring the devastation wrought by nuclear bombs).

[Sarastro]

a quick end to the war

Great! Let's drop bombs on each other to end wars and make peace in the World! If they don't want to surrender, let's drop more!

But what about the consequences? What would be left from the World? What about humanism, at last?

[bwv 1080]

That is factually untrue. The Japanese cabinet was in the process of making precisely that decision when the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitously dropped. In fact there were even diplomatic overtures prior to Hiroshima, but their precise intent is unclear. But the Japanese certainly did not have much time to first comprehend what had happened in Hiroshima and then react appropriately before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.

That may be clear now, but certainly was not at the time

Besides, that is a truly morally warped argument to say that because the allies had already firebombed Dresden and Tokyo another nuke or two won't make a difference, we're all going to meet Satan anyway.

The point is that why does everyone make a big deal about Hiroshima if Tokyo and Dresden were worse?  I am not necessarily defending either, other than the generic defence that war is hell.  But I do not think the Allied Command made a big distinction between a nuke or firebombing

[head-case]

The highlighted bits are the problems with your moral logic here. Your failure to see the distinction between civilians who have done nothing except being born into the wrong society at the wrong time makes you no better than your presumed enemy. (BTW, re: genocidal death machine? Are you sure you're talking about Japan here, not Germany? Which genocide precisely?) Playing the numbers game is a Stalinist exercise (one death a tragedy, a million a statistic) and puts you squarely in Saul-land. You seem to think two wrongs make a right. You don't understand that by stooping to your enemy's moral level you lose the high ground. The fundamental issue here is that there was no military need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, two militarily irrelevant targets (except that the river delta in which Hiroshima was located made an excellent testing ground for measuring the devastation wrought by nuclear bombs).

I did not say, imply, nor do I think that "two wrongs make a right."  The number slaughtered by the Japanese in China and their subsequent conduct indicate that the people who were in control of Japan had no respect for human life, including the lives of their own citizens.  The only way to end the war was to make it impossible for them to continue.   The nuclear attacks accomplished that goal, probably with significantly smaller loss of life than would otherwise be the case.

Again, your distinction about these being civilian targets is semantic.  The members of the Japanese armed forces had no more choice than the civilians.  Neither did members of the US armed forces.

[MishaK]

That may be clear now, but certainly was not at the time

Yes, that is if you accept the bomb first, ask questions later logic. How about giving them some time to react? This wasn't the age of the internet. Tokyo's first notice of Hiroshima came only 16 hours after the event. BTW, there is also indication that the urgency to act on the Japanese side had at least as much to do with the Soviet entry into the war, not the bomb in and of itself.

The point is that why does everyone make a big deal about Hiroshima if Tokyo and Dresden were worse?  I am not necessarily defending either, other than the generic defence that war is hell.  But I do not think the Allied Command made a big distinction between a nuke or firebombing

If it didn't make that distinction, then why not firebomb Hiroshima? Your argument is nonsense because if there is no distinction then one woudln't use the bomb. The reason to use it is precisely that it is so powerful and much more deadly. There is also a categorical moral difference between outright killing a bunch of people vs. killing people and poisoning the survivors and their offspring for years to come.

I did not say, imply, nor do I think that "two wrongs make a right."  The number slaughtered by the Japanese in China and their subsequent conduct indicate that the people who were in control of Japan had no respect for human life, including the lives of their own citizens.  The only way to end the war was to make it impossible for them to continue.   The nuclear attacks accomplished that goal, probably with significantly smaller loss of life than would otherwise be the case.

You deny that you implied that two wrongs make a right, then you say it again in the next sentence! It is irrelevant whether the Japanese administration had disregard of human life. The point is the US killed a bunch of civilians. That is disregard of human life. Targeting civilians is a war crime. Civilians are what is known as "hors de combat", outside of combat, not fair game. End of story. You can't criticize others for disregarding human life when you do the same in turn. That is two wrongs making a right. You are saying because of what they did in China they diserve what they got. Nonsense!

Again, your distinction about these being civilian targets is semantic.  The members of the Japanese armed forces had no more choice than the civilians.  Neither did members of the US armed forces.

And lack of choice makes them fair targets? What sort of warped morality is this? If anything, choice is a prerequisite for culpability. How can civilians (and mind you there were 20,000 Koreans killed in Hiroshima who were there against their will) who have no choice in the matter be held accountable by punishment of death for the crimes of military commanders during Japan's occupation of China? That is guilt by association, my friend. The same exact logic practiced by those who were on the wrong side of that war.

[head-case]

You deny that you implied that two wrongs make a right, then you say it again in the next sentence! It is irrelevant whether the Japanese administration had disregard of human life. The point is the US killed a bunch of civilians. That is disregard of human life. Targeting civilians is a war crime. Civilians are what is known as "hors de combat", outside of combat, not fair game. End of story. You can't criticize others for disregarding human life when you do the same in turn. That is two wrongs making a right. You are saying because of what they did in China they diserve what they got. Nonsense!

You are not paying attention.  There was nothing "right" about causing civilian deaths.  The US did not exhibit a disregard for human life, they did human life arithmetic.  They decided that to prevent the deaths of an enormous number of people they would have to cause the deaths of a smaller number of people.  The leaders of Japan also had the option of saving all of those people by surrendering unconditionally, which they did not do, and which they were not planning to do when the second bomb was dropped.  According to  your logic the US would be required to allow Hitler to take over the world, lest we kill an innocent civilian in deploying our armed forces.  And I don't think the life of an 18 year old who got drafted into the army and will be part of the invasion force is worth any less than that of a civilian (hors de combat or no hors de combat, whatever that means).

[MishaK]

You are not paying attention.  There was nothing "right" about causing civilian deaths.  The US did not exhibit a disregard for human life, they did human life arithmetic. 

This is the arithmetic: two negatives make a positive. Man, you're slow today. Human life arithmetic IS exhibiting disregard for human life. I am not a number. Neither is a cobbler in Nagasaki AD 1945.

They decided that to prevent the deaths of an enormous number of people they would have to cause the deaths of a smaller number of people. 

No. Some of them did. A number of high ranking military officers had serious doubts about the necessity of dropping the bomb at all, let alone on civilian targets, among them Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William D. Leahy, General Carl Spaatz and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.

According to  your logic the US would be required to allow Hitler to take over the world, lest we kill an innocent civilian in deploying our armed forces.

That, my friend, is called a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy. Hitler has nothing to do with this. And no bombs ended the war in Germany. There is no logic by which that nonsensical sentence follows from what I said.

And I don't think the life of an 18 year old who got drafted into the army and will be part of the invasion force is worth any less than that of a civilian.

The difference, morally speaking, is that the soldier, whether drafted or not, has a weapon, whereas the civilian does not. The soldier is part of the combat, the civilian is not. You cannot count lives against each other. If you've elected to fight, you must fight. But fight the fighters, not mothers, children, elderly and cripples.

[head-case]

This is the arithmetic: two negatives make a positive. Man, you're slow today. Human life arithmetic IS exhibiting disregard for human life. I am not a number. Neither is a cobbler in Nagasaki AD 1945.

Two negatives make a positive in multiplication, not in addition.  It's still worse to kill two cobblers than one cobbler.

[BorisG]

You are not paying attention.  There was nothing "right" about causing civilian deaths.  The US did not exhibit a disregard for human life, they did human life arithmetic.  They decided that to prevent the deaths of an enormous number of people they would have to cause the deaths of a smaller number of people.  The leaders of Japan also had the option of saving all of those people by surrendering unconditionally, which they did not do, and which they were not planning to do when the second bomb was dropped.  According to  your logic the US would be required to allow Hitler to take over the world, lest we kill an innocent civilian in deploying our armed forces.  And I don't think the life of an 18 year old who got drafted into the army and will be part of the invasion force is worth any less than that of a civilian (hors de combat or no hors de combat, whatever that means).

Civilian deaths were not unusual during that era--destroying cities was commonplace with conventional bombing, and not so conventional bombing, such as V1s and V2s.

There is much evidence to suggest that Japan was on its last legs, that neither an invasion or atomic bombs were necessary.

There is also much evidence to suggest that the estimated US fatalities in a Japan invasion would have been 30,000 to 40,000. Not the figure of 500,000 easily thrown about by bomb zealots.

And there is also much evidence to suggest that the atomic bombs were used for long-term political gain, which would involve Russia.

Interesting point about Truman. After he gave the order (July 25, 1945), he wrote in his diary that the atomic bombs would be used against military targets, not civilian.  Soon after August 6, 1945, he told the American people that Hiroshima base had been bombed.

[paulb]

The difference, morally speaking, is that the soldier, whether drafted or not, has a weapon, whereas the civilian does not. The soldier is part of the combat, the civilian is not. You cannot count lives against each other. If you've elected to fight, you must fight. But fight the fighters, not mothers, children, elderly and cripples.

Hitler , Stalin, Jap leaders, and of late  Al Qaeda all have the mind set that civilians are nothing more than human shields.
If ever the world comes to another conflagration, I fear many muslim's will be killed. many civilians have adopted this  attitude , to die for Allah is a supreme honor.  Though they are not armed with a  gun, their attitude is militaryistic.
Now in the 2 japenese cities that suffered the effects of the bomb, i am not sure what the attitude was of these civilians. Whatever position the population  took about war was of little consequence, as the majority of leaders had made the decision that these people would all be soldiers.
Think about muslim women who are committed to hating and despising Israel and the west. The blood of their children rests on their heads.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It's perfectly sensible the US would use the bomb to end the war. The Japanese military had become increasingly erratic in their behavior (kamikaze) and who knows what lie in store had the war been drawn out even one more day.

All this latter-day theorizing about the health and intentions of Japan's military is interesting but it doesn't change the fact they were still a living, breathing entity.

And the Japanese army had a well-deserved reputation for getting the job done.

To let them catch their breath for even one second might potentially spell disaster.

When two championship boxers go at it tooth and nail for fifteen rounds the last thing the victor thinks about is "now why didn't I just let my hobbling opponent think it over for a second or two before I delivered the knockout punch". It's the height of imprudence to ease up at crucial stages in any conflict, no matter how weak your opponent may appear - too much chance for the unexpected...like a sucker punch. Wait for the final bell, then assess. Otherwise it might be you on the mat and not the other guy.

The fact that Japan finally seemed about to crack after many grueling years of conflict only meant it was time to deliver the knockout blow. Not back off and hope for the best.

And I have to say, from our present-day perspective it's much easier to pick decisions like this apart. But from the perspective of a worn-out, war-weary nation (world!), a well-defined end to such a barbaric conflict must've seemed perfectly sensible...

[paulb]

Donwyn
great post. You nailed it.
Can we draw a  comparison with the kamakazies of japan and the muslims as suicide bombers?

I think its a  fair comparison and so  most likely will have similar results.
If you read the recent AP article about the hopelessness of many egyptian youths, one can understand why  many muslims  take on a   reckless suicidal behavoir.

[M forever]

Donwyn
great post. You nailed it.
Can we draw a  comparison with the kamakazies of japan and the muslims as suicide bombers?

I think its a  fair comparison and so  most likely will have similar results.
If you read the recent AP article about the hopelessness of many egyptian youths, one can understand why  many muslims  take on a   reckless suicidal behavoir.

Maybe, maybe not. In any case, you problems with writing in and spelling your own language and your very fragmentary knowledge of basically all the things you comment on are a nice illustration of this thread's title.

And the Japanese army had a well-deserved reputation for getting the job done.

To let them catch their breath for even one second might potentially spell disaster.

When two championship boxers go at it tooth and nail for fifteen rounds the last thing the victor thinks about is "now why didn't I just let my hobbling opponent think it over for a second or two before I delivered the knockout punch". It's the height of imprudence to let up at crucial stages in any conflict, no matter how weak your opponent may appear - too much chance for the unexpected...like a sucker punch. Wait for the final bell, then assess. Otherwise it might be you on the mat and not the other guy.

The fact that Japan finally seemed about to crack after many grueling years of conflict only meant it was time to deliver the knockout blow. Not back off and hope for the best.

In other words, the US military was not confident that they could handle the Japanese army with conventional methods, so they had to use the genocidal ones that had just been made available to them. Which makes sense if you look at the history of US wars and how surprisingly ineffective the US military has always been when (more or less) on their own. Korea, Vietnam, the wat they handled the still nogoing war in Iraq - all cases of "dumb and dumber" in a military sense, too?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

In other words, the US military was not confident that they could handle the Japanese army with conventional methods, so they had to use the genocidal ones that had just been made available to them. Which makes sense if you look at the history of US wars and how surprisingly ineffective the US military has always been when (more or less) on their own. Korea, Vietnam, the wat they handled the still nogoing war in Iraq - all cases of "dumb and dumber" in a military sense, too?

So I guess it's a lack of confidence now that prompts armies to develop better technologies??

So, what, should we go back to the musket to fight our wars so as to not seem overly timid?!?

What else should we jettison?? Aircraft Carriers? Bazookas? Billy clubs? How about we just go back to biting each other and pulling hair to fight our wars?? That'll make us real men!

Civilization has grown technologically since the dawn of the arrowhead. Gadgets permeate everything - from the microwave oven to the computer. And warfare will ALWAYS be in line for its share of gadgets...

But only the timid nations, right??