60 Years Ago This Week

[xoxoxoBruce]

The japs offered peace terms a few hours before the attack on Pearl, too. A cute little trick, the people that were living then, had not forgotten.
Even after the two A-bombs they would have fought to the death if the Emperor hadn't finally over ruled the military that were running the show. Don't forget the soldiers that were left on remote islands and still fighting the war 20, 30, 40 years later.
Unconditional surrender was the only way.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Even after the two A-bombs they would have fought to the death if the Emperor hadn't finally over ruled the military that were running the show. Don't forget the soldiers that were left on remote islands and still fighting the war 20, 30, 40 years later.

Yes, but the Emperor could've made them swallow it on July 15 as easily as on August 15. He was a god, remember?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, but he didn't, did he? It took two bombs to convince him.....or convince the people that advised him.

[tw]

Originally Posted by djacq75

Yes, but the Emperor could've made them swallow it on July 15 as easily as on August 15. He was a god, remember?

Notice two fundamental facts. First, purpose of war is to take a conflict back to the negotiation table. Getting there was a problem because, second, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

To end WWII, destruction had to be so great as to force top management to concede to reality. Reality was unconditional surrender. Japan leaders refused to concede to that bottom line long after the war was lost. Therefore people had to keep dying. Keep dying until Japan conceded to conditions for negotiations. The purpose of war - and death - that negotiation table.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

Reality was unconditional surrender.

What in the hell does that mean?

"Unconditional surrender" was a demand made by the U.S. because it sounded bad-ass and we like to be bad-ass. In the context of the moment, the difference between it and conditional surrender was rather superficial; as I've pointed out, we saw no need to kill the Emperor.

But since you're getting metaphysical on me here, "unconditional surrender" was not a fact of reality, it was a political demand that was framed in a specific way by specific people and could've been framed in a different way if attaining peace were the goal of the creeps in power, which it wasn't.

(I suppose the Holocaust was a way of bringing the Jews into line with the "reality" that they weren't wanted in Europe?)

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes, but he didn't, did he? It took two bombs to convince him.....or convince the people that advised him.

I was answering a particular argument, by you, which implied that the Japanese would've gone on fighting despite the Emperor. The Emperor, as I stated, offered peace terms in July. Why they weren't accepted in preference to capping off the orgy of destruction with even more destruction, is the question.

[tw]

Originally Posted by djacq75

What in the hell does that mean?

"Unconditional surrender" was a demand made by the U.S. because it sounded bad-ass and we like to be bad-ass.

Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.

Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.

Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by djacq75

I was answering a particular argument, by you, which implied that the Japanese would've gone on fighting despite the Emperor. The Emperor, as I stated, offered peace terms in July. Why they weren't accepted in preference to capping off the orgy of destruction with even more destruction, is the question.

Because they proved they were not to be trusted when they offered peace a few hours before Pearl Harbor. Previous to that they had done the same thing to the Russians, talk peace and sneak attack. No, unconditional surrender was the only acceptable conclusion.
btw, it didn't matter what the emperor was offering through diplomatic channels in July because the military was still running the show. Some of them even had the Emporer in "protective custody", for a while, so he couldn't speak to the Japanese people.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.

It was defined by specific persons, and could be redefined by specific persons to accommodate new circumstances. You seem not to understand the difference between metaphysical facts and man-made demands.

This also begs the question, though, of why I should give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives." Had I been alive at the time, and experienced enough to see through FDR's bullshit the way I see through Bush's today, I would've opposed entry into the war in the first place. In that case I wouldn't have cared all that much if their "strategic objectives" were achieved or fell to pieces.

Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.

The political objective in the Vietnam war was fairly clear--to preserve the dominance of non-Communists in South Vietnam. It wasn't a practical objective because the entire country was ridden with Communists, which we should've figured out.

Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.

They "did their job"? Yes, they did...if you agree with Groucho Marx's view that "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong remedy." That describes WWII to a tee, and most other wars, for that matter.

WWI was inconclusive precisely because the Versailles treaty tried to impose the "political objectives" about which you have been waxing enthusiastic. (And because it left a government in power in Russia that was worse than any the West had faced before--at least since Genghis Khan--or would face later.)

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

btw, it didn't matter what the emperor was offering through diplomatic channels in July because the military was still running the show. Some of them even had the Emporer in "protective custody", for a while, so he couldn't speak to the Japanese people.

For awhile? He was seized for a few hours on August 14. Didn't take him long to get back in the saddle, so to speak. He was detained for less time than Gorbachev in 1991.

The peace terms offered in June and July 1945, at any rate, were proffered by Foreign Minister Togo by way of Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R. Sato. Even if you buy the idea of an impotent Emperor, Togo, presumably, had full credentials to speak for his government.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's not a matter of credentials. Your problem is you're looking from 2006 with hindsight. In 1945, they were justifiably not trusted.

[djacq75]

However, in July 1945 they had already had their clocks cleaned. Their idea of an offensive was a kamikaze attack. Apples and oranges.

[tw]

Originally Posted by djacq75

However, in July 1945 they had already had their clocks cleaned. Their idea of an offensive was a kamikaze attack. Apples and oranges.

Kamikaze was about defense - not an offensive strategy. Kamikaze was a last ditch attempt to lose a war WITHOUT unconditional surrender. The allies' strategic objective was a last remaining purpose to keep fighting. Unconditional surrender meant occupation of the Japanese homeland - that had never happened. It meant the emperor could be removed and imprisoned - which the Japanese just were not yet prepared to accept. The Japanese expected to fight for every inch all across mainland Japan. Not to win the war. Everyone knew that would never happen. Japan feared the allied strategic objective - the requirement to end hostilities - the exit strategy - the only reason the Pacific War continued. Unconditional surrender was that requirement. A requirement that good leaders established up front and maintained to the end.

BTW, why could Americans demand nothing less after so many years of war? The smoking gun - Pearl Harbor. Just another example of why a smoking gun is so essential to win a war.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sure, their capability of launching an offensive against our superior forces, that had pushed them back to the homeland, was fizzling. Now what? Surround the country forever? A costly, to both sides, invasion? Trust them to behave?

American’s wanted it over, finished, WON........bring the troops home. The most expedient unconditional surrender possible. That’s what Truman gave us.

I was thinking about this last night, while watching a show on PBS, about the bridge on the river Kwai. The story behind the railroad being built, interviews with some of the POWs that survived and the documentation that remains today.
We'll have to agree to disagree because you'll never convince me it wasn't the absolute right thing for Truman to do.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We'll have to agree to disagree because you'll never convince me it wasn't the absolute right thing for Truman to do.

Remember that your perspective is completely different from his perspective. It is but another reason why we learn history. Same exact facts can appear completely different from different perspectives. It is why Kennedy so saved all our lives when he kept asking the important question during a Cuban Missile Crisis. What is he being told? What does he see? What does he know? Without those questions, it is a sure probability that the 1st Marine Division would have been nuked on the beaches of Cuba.

Same must be asked before judging Truman from our perspective.