• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad ideas in war

HansMustermann said:
Re: The atomic bombs.

1. Yes, as others have stated, Japan had just refused an ultimatum to unconditionally surrender. No matter how some people want to split hairs over the proper translation of "mokusatsu" in context, ignoring -- or any other reasonable translation -- an ultimatum is the same as rejecting it. That's what an ultimatum MEANS. So, fair is fair.


2. As I've mentioned before, the final defense of Japan was a literal Zapp Brannigan plan. ("You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.") They planned to send the whole of 100 million Japanese, elderly, women and children alike, against the Americans. The vast majority armed with no more than sharpened bamboo poles. Until the Americans get sick of slaughtering millions of innocent civilians and give up. I'm not making it up. Look it up.

So yeah, fair is fair, forcing them to surrender before going all Zapp Brannigan did save lives.


3. THAT said, the Japanese conditions for surrender had shrunk over time to not as unreasonable as you'd think, and not much different from the final outcome anyway.

E.g., from the same "mokusatsu" answer some of the most "controversial" Japanese conditions were stuff like:

Article 9: Japanese soldiers will be allowed to return home and lead peaceful lives again.

Article 10: Japan as a nation will not be enslaved or destroyed.

Seriously, that's the stuff that was so outrageous, that even their own press censored it.

And, then the most controversial condition of them all, that the Emperor will remain Emperor and will not be tried.

Well, what did happen after the war? Ah right, those exact things anyway :p

What I'm saying is that while there is a valid point to be made about accepting an ultimatum or not, there's also something to be said about not escalating it over conditions that you're not going to break anyway. Just saying :p
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a very valid reason for keeping to the unconditional surrender, even if the end result, after the surrender, was going to be to grant some of the conditions the Japanese made, anyway.

For by granting them before the surrender, by giving in to these demands, there would be a large danger of there remaing a faction in power which would be able to say 'If the allies granted these conditions and we surrendered anyway, it obviously would have been possible to demand more so we could have ended the war on honorable terms.'
And then you're right back to the 'dolkstoss' legend, that worked oh so well in Germany in the 1920's and 30's.

No. In order to preclude a thing like that, the only way for the war to end well, was for the loser to accept that 'No, you don't get to demand a single thing. There's only one thing which you can do, and that is to lay down your weapons. That is the only decision you're allowed to take. Anything else, will just result in the war going on'.
 
Last edited:
Was Japan, just prior to the dropping of the nukes, still any danger to the US?

How "was the war going om"?
The US still had to mop up Japanese forces who didn't believe the Surrender was real.

There was no urgency.
But it was very much a Hammer -Nail Situation.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Was Japan, just prior to the dropping of the nukes, still any danger to the US?

How "was the war going om"?
The US still had to mop up Japanese forces who didn't believe the Surrender was real.

There was no urgency.
But it was very much a Hammer -Nail Situation.
Click to expand...


Japan was a danger to the world - or at least to the Asian world. If Japan had not been forced to surrender it could continue to be that danger.

I don’t see the validity of the argument that because some very few Japanese fought on elsewhere, the war was not over.

Why do you think that Japan should have been given more time to avoid a surrender?

It was very much a situation of having a nail, and insisting on using a hammer, rather than the fists against it.
 
Last edited:
Not sure a dolchstoss myth would have worked well in Japan, when it's essentially the army and the Emperor doing the surrender. It wouldn't be some civvies deciding to surrender. The army and navy were only subordinated to the Emperor, and the rest of the government or even the Imperial Diet couldn't tell them what to do. (Seriously, they had tried to tell them to take a chill pill in China, but had no authority to make them do anything.) So yes, it would have to be the Emperor and chiefs of the armed forces that sign a peace.

I'm not sure how one could square the imperial cult of the Emperor with accusing the Emperor of stabbing them in the back.

Plus, I'm sure you know that what made the dolchstoss myth even plausible was that the German army's new stormtrooper tactics had actually broken the stalemate and gained ground. It had taken major losses and was unsustainable even for the army, much less the whole country, but when talking to some guys who didn't know that, it was easy to spin the story as "we were backstabbed just as we were winning."

In Japan I don't think anyone was under the impression that they're winning at that point. I mean they were just starting to tell even the population that 100 million of them will have to be ready to die to protect Japan and the Emperor. If anyone tried to go "but we were winning!"... well, just show them a map and ask them exactly WHERE were they winning at any point in 1945 :p
 
Plus, just to be clear, that was the mokusatsu answer. Eventually the conditions shrunk to just "leave the Emperor be", right before the Emperor went and capitulated unconditionally anyway, when even that wasn't acceptable.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Was Japan, just prior to the dropping of the nukes, still any danger to the US?

How "was the war going om"?
The US still had to mop up Japanese forces who didn't believe the Surrender was real.

There was no urgency.
But it was very much a Hammer -Nail Situation.
Click to expand...

I think the world has been a much better, safer place, for eighty years, because Japan was forced to give up every shred of imperialist ambition, and invited to join the Pax Americana. It would have been a very bad idea in war, to relent just on the point of greatest benefit.

For example: In my opinion it has been a very bad idea in war to not give the Palestinians the same deal offered to the Germans and the Japanese.
 
As I've mentioned when this subject has been discussed in the past, in the interest of full disclosure, my grandfather was on a troopship headed from Europe to the Pacific when Japan surrendered.

HansMustermann said:
2. As I've mentioned before, the final defense of Japan was a literal Zapp Brannigan plan. ("You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.") They planned to send the whole of 100 million Japanese, elderly, women and children alike, against the Americans. The vast majority armed with no more than sharpened bamboo poles. Until the Americans get sick of slaughtering millions of innocent civilians and give up. I'm not making it up. Look it up.
Click to expand...


It was even worse than that. Some senior army officers were advocating outright killing millions of less able-bodied Japanese civilians so that they wouldn't be a drain on limited food supplies.

Interestingly, though, the Japanese had no plans to continue resisting after Tokyo and its environs had fallen, as beyond that point they didn't expect to be able to gain more favorable surrender terms.

HansMustermann said:
So yeah, fair is fair, forcing them to surrender before going all Zapp Brannigan did save lives.
Click to expand...


Another point that's often overlooked is that shortening the war by six months or a year probably saved millions of lives among the populations in areas still under Japanese occupation, who otherwise would have starved to death due to the effects of Allied economic strangulation and Japanese mismanagement.

HansMustermann said:
3. THAT said, the Japanese conditions for surrender had shrunk over time to not as unreasonable as you'd think, and not much different from the final outcome anyway.

E.g., from the same "mokusatsu" answer some of the most "controversial" Japanese conditions were stuff like:

Article 9: Japanese soldiers will be allowed to return home and lead peaceful lives again.

Article 10: Japan as a nation will not be enslaved or destroyed.

Seriously, that's the stuff that was so outrageous, that even their own press censored it.
Click to expand...


Erm, those are paraphrases of portions of articles of the Potsdam DeclarationWP, issued by the Allies on July 26, 1945, demanding Japan's unconditional surrender. And where do you get this claim about censorship of Japanese surrender offers? It's true that the Japanese were talking to the Soviets about possible conditional surrender negotiations, but those discussions never reached the stage of specific proposals. This is partly because the Soviets were deliberately stonewalling, as they wanted the war to continue long enough for them to enter and occupy certain Japanese territories.

The National World War II Museum states:

The Big Six finally gathered for the meeting reacting to Hiroshima on the morning of August 9. By then, they had learned of Soviet intervention into the war during the night. During the meeting news arrived of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. For the first time, they worked on terms to end the war. Before them was the Potsdam Declaration setting forth Allied conditions for ending the war. Three members advocated that Japan accept the Potsdam Declaration with the proviso that the imperial institution be retained: Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki and Navy Minister Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai.

Three members held out for three additional terms: Army Minister General Korechika Anami and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, General Yoshijiro Umezu, and Navy, Admiral Soemu Toyoda. These additional terms included: 1) Japan would disarm her own forces; 2) Japan would conduct any “so-called” war crimes trials of her own nationals; and 3) there would be no occupation of Japan. This last term would assure the continuance of the Imperial system and Hirohito’s seat on the throne. These positions would be referred to as the “one condition” and the “four condition” Japanese peace terms. Under the Japanese governing system, however, the Big Six could only act when unanimous. With a three to three split, they were deadlocked.​

So it seems highly doubtful that the Japanese were shopping surrender terms that didn't include the hilited prior to August 6.

HansMustermann said:
And, then the most controversial condition of them all, that the Emperor will remain Emperor and will not be tried.
Click to expand...


The Allies never actually agreed to let Hirohito stay. Rather, they issued an interpretation of one of the Potsdam Declaration's provisions, namely, that the Japanese people would choose their post-occupation government. That interpretation stated that the Japanese people could elect to retain the Imperial system, which they of course did. And in any case, some Allied leaders, notably MacArthur, favored retaining Hirohito as a figurehead, for political reasons.

HansMustermann said:
Well, what did happen after the war? Ah right, those exact things anyway :p

What I'm saying is that while there is a valid point to be made about accepting an ultimatum or not, there's also something to be said about not escalating it over conditions that you're not going to break anyway. Just saying :p
Click to expand...


As discussed, the idea that the Japanese were willing to surrender with only minor conditions prior to the atomic bombs' being dropped and the Soviets' declaring war is a myth.
 
steenkh said:
Unconditional surrender? Isn’t that what is actually offered?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, there are two things missing from the deal being offered the Palestinians. One is broad international consensus that they've been defeated and need to stop fighting. The other is military occupation, martial law, and the eventual return to self-rule as a privilege to be earned.
 
SpitfireIX said:
As I've mentioned when this subject has been discussed in the past, in the interest of full disclosure, my grandfather was on a troopship headed from Europe to the Pacific when Japan surrendered.




It was even worse than that. Some senior army officers were advocating outright killing millions of less able-bodied Japanese civilians so that they wouldn't be a drain on limited food supplies.

Interestingly, though, the Japanese had no plans to continue resisting after Tokyo and its environs had fallen, as beyond that point they didn't expect to be able to gain more favorable surrender terms.




Another point that's often overlooked is that shortening the war by six months or a year probably saved millions of lives among the populations in areas still under Japanese occupation, who otherwise would have starved to death due to the effects of Allied economic strangulation and Japanese mismanagement.




Erm, those are paraphrases of portions of articles of the Potsdam DeclarationWP, issued by the Allies on July 26, 1945, demanding Japan's unconditional surrender. And where do you get this claim about censorship of Japanese surrender offers? It's true that the Japanese were talking to the Soviets about possible conditional surrender negotiations, but those discussions never reached the stage of specific proposals. This is partly because the Soviets were deliberately stonewalling, as they wanted the war to continue long enough for them to enter and occupy certain Japanese territories.

The National World War II Museum states:

The Big Six finally gathered for the meeting reacting to Hiroshima on the morning of August 9. By then, they had learned of Soviet intervention into the war during the night. During the meeting news arrived of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. For the first time, they worked on terms to end the war. Before them was the Potsdam Declaration setting forth Allied conditions for ending the war. Three members advocated that Japan accept the Potsdam Declaration with the proviso that the imperial institution be retained: Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki and Navy Minister Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai.

Three members held out for three additional terms: Army Minister General Korechika Anami and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, General Yoshijiro Umezu, and Navy, Admiral Soemu Toyoda. These additional terms included: 1) Japan would disarm her own forces; 2) Japan would conduct any “so-called” war crimes trials of her own nationals; and 3) there would be no occupation of Japan. This last term would assure the continuance of the Imperial system and Hirohito’s seat on the throne. These positions would be referred to as the “one condition” and the “four condition” Japanese peace terms. Under the Japanese governing system, however, the Big Six could only act when unanimous. With a three to three split, they were deadlocked.​

So it seems highly doubtful that the Japanese were shopping surrender terms that didn't include the hilited prior to August 6.




The Allies never actually agreed to let Hirohito stay. Rather, they issued an interpretation of one of the Potsdam Declaration's provisions, namely, that the Japanese people would choose their post-occupation government. That interpretation stated that the Japanese people could elect to retain the Imperial system, which they of course did. And in any case, some Allied leaders, notably MacArthur, favored retaining Hirohito as a figurehead, for political reasons.




As discussed, the idea that the Japanese were willing to surrender with only minor conditions prior to the atomic bombs' being dropped and the Soviets' declaring war is a myth.
Click to expand...

Exactly, when it was discussed last time, I think it was Gwadzilla Sama who pointed out that Japan was performing offensives in China and every month about 100,000 civilians under Japanese occupation were killed.

So even shortening the war by 2 months would have saved lives. But the Allies had no obligation to sacrifice the lives of their troops in order to let far more Japanese civilians and troops get killed than if the bombs were used..

A horrific but justified way to bring the war to a faster end
 
My own theory is that the allies heard about the Japanese plan to bring everyone to the fight... including the high school girls... and if anime taught me anything, then God have mercy on all of us ;)
 
HansMustermann said:
E.g., from the same "mokusatsu" answer some of the most "controversial" Japanese conditions were stuff like:

Article 9: Japanese soldiers will be allowed to return home and lead peaceful lives again.

Article 10: Japan as a nation will not be enslaved or destroyed.
Click to expand...

Those were allied statements of intent for what was to happen after an unconditional surrender.
Seriously, that's the stuff that was so outrageous, that even their own press censored it.
Click to expand...

No they censored the ultimatum to get rid of those statements.
And, then the most controversial condition of them all, that the Emperor will remain Emperor and will not be tried.
Click to expand...

THat was not part of the ultimatum at the time it was an option to charge the Emperor, that was in no small part why the japanese refused to comment on the ultimatum.

What I'm saying is that while there is a valid point to be made about accepting an ultimatum or not, there's also something to be said about not escalating it over conditions that you're not going to break anyway. Just saying :p
Click to expand...

The decision to not charge the emperor was made after the surrender, and it is possible that if the ultimatum had guaranteed the emperor would not be charged they might have accepted the ultimatum.
 
For everyone here is the Potsdam Declaration, the ultimatum to japan

We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.


This was the ultimatum the japanese rejected
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Was Japan, just prior to the dropping of the nukes, still any danger to the US?
Click to expand...

US no, but they still had lots of conquered territory under their control in china, korea and various south east asian countries. They were not bottled up on their home islands.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Erm, those are paraphrases of portions of articles of the Potsdam DeclarationWP, issued by the Allies on July 26, 1945, demanding Japan's unconditional surrender. And where do you get this claim about censorship of Japanese surrender offers?
Click to expand...

The youtube history channel World War Two this week on this very issue because they are going week by week 79 years later so this came up. And those parts of the Potsdam Declaration were censored in japanese newspapers as they didn't want the populace to know the unconditional surrender would not be like they did to countries that they invaded.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The youtube history channel World War Two this week on this very issue because they are going week by week 79 years later so this came up. And those parts of the Potsdam Declaration were censored in japanese newspapers as they didn't want the populace to know the unconditional surrender would not be like they did to countries that they invaded.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Japanese were pushing the "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" propaganda portraying Allied troops as monsters and training civilians (including kids) to attack them with untipped bamboo spears and wooden awls. Their belief was that deaths in the millions would deter the Allies and lead to potentially "better" negotiated settlement. For certain values of "better".
 
Well, I was wrong about the mokusatsu respones and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Moving on...

Bad ideas in war: having a secret weapon that's so secret that even the troops don't actually know much about it, much less how to use it right.

Enter stage left... the "mitrailleuse", or at least the original 25 barrel one (yeah, one round in each magazine per barrel, because why not?), which (not very) arguably wasn't the best weapon concept anyway, but it was kept such a secret and issued to artillery units that hadn't even SEEN one before, much less had a tactical concept of how to use one, that it was an abject failure during the Franco-Prussian war. Artillery troops issued these things didn't even know it's range. They routinely tried to use it at actual artillery ranges, where the BEST case scenario was they didn't do anything at all.

Now, you might ask, if the BEST case scenario is that they just used ammo, logistics and personnel and didn't actually do anything to help the battle... what is the worst case? Yeah, well, that involved them being annihilated by Prussian counter-battery fire by actual artillery, while still not doing anything :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom