Multymegaton ****storm :) Could the Germans win the war?

[C'Rogers]

Yeah, I'm interested in a few things as well to keep it going. To go back a few pages.

Personally, so far US leaders do not look that much different from Japanese. Both parties were willing to exterminate as many civilians as needed to reach the goal of utter destruction of their political enemies.

It seems like the entire premise of the argument is what are good and bad actions in war. I don't think that is the relevant question here (though it is a relevant question for other topics, ie individual action in war and treatment of prisoners). War is bad. People die. No one is disagreeing with that. In a war on the scale of WWII civilians will be killed.

If we're going to contend that war can be fought with civilians not being killed let's be up front about what we're discussing. I believe IMHO brought up COIN ops as a success earlier. One, I don't think they count as any type of ideal alternative, and two, they could not have been used against Japan/Germany (nations on par with the US militarily).

As another issue, in our moral calculus, we are only discussing human lives. Now human life should take precedence, but there is the issue of dignity and rights as well. If Chinese accounts are to be believed, then Japanese treatment of the Chinese was inhumane conditions that can match anything in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Even if those stories (Rape of Nanking) are exaggerations by the Communist Party, China, Korea, and others were being undoubtly being oppressed by the Japanese. Hastening the end of the war also ended the Japanese Empire's oppression.

Thirdly, it is brought up that the US wanted to break the Japanese state. Yes, they did. Would it have been okay to allow the Imperial military, and the entire military culture, to remain? If not utterly broken it is quite possible that the Japanese military would return later only to start another war.

In hindsight, we know that is unlikely given the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War (and even the American military did not expect how strongly the Japanese would take to pacifism). But at the time, breaking the Japanese wasn't just an act of revenge, but likely seemed to many the only way to assure future peace.

[Michael Emrys]

The US applied precisely as much violence as was necessary to achieve the goals of it and it's allies - if there was any similarity between IJ and the US, then the Japanese surrender would have just been the beginning of the massacre.

Good point.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

But at the time' date=' breaking the Japanese wasn't just an act of revenge, but likely seemed to many the only way to assure future peace.[/quote']

Also a good point.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link to Frank. I feel we are on first name terms already.

Frank makes a good case. However there is an interesting point that relying on radio interrcepts provided plenty of information how the military felt about fighting on - which I think everyone would expect to be the military option. The lack of information on the civilian side - as in what was going on in Tokyo was therefore unrepresented.

I am not saying it would have made much difference rather that the slant was ...slanted.

It was also interesting as an indicator on Marshall who comes over as an even bigger prick than I thought.

The article on Polk is also very interesting. Frank incidentally refers to the Manchester Guardian which given it does not exist under that name is hardly a ringing endorsement for accuracy : ). Seems a good guy though.

[dieseltaylor]

CORRECTION

For Marshall read MacArthur.

[IMHO]

Yeah, I'm interested in a few things as well to keep it going. To go back a few pages.

It seems like the entire premise of the argument is what are good and bad actions in war. I don't think that is the relevant question here (though it is a relevant question for other topics, ie individual action in war and treatment of prisoners). War is bad. People die. No one is disagreeing with that. In a war on the scale of WWII civilians will be killed.

I would rather say it's not very discussable question

Planning military operations while taking into account the civilian casualties is good. Calculating means to achieve the goals with utter disregard to this angle is bad. Taking a strategy of breaking the nation's leaders will to fight by annihilating the nation itself is a war crime. And that was the US strategy.

Good angle is actually omnipresent in every modern military operation the US conducts yet those military objectives are achieved. In Iraqi war no one bombed civilian population of Basra, Baghdad, Mosul to push Saddam to give up. Yet this would have been exactly the modern reincarnation of the WWII strategy. So there's a "good" way to do it. People just didn't care back then.

If we're going to contend that war can be fought with civilians not being killed let's be up front about what we're discussing. I believe IMHO brought up COIN ops as a success earlier. One' date=' I don't think they count as any type of ideal alternative, and two, they could not have been used against Japan/Germany (nations on par with the US militarily).[/quote']

I brought COIN as another philosophy of war. Your opposing force is made up of human beings just like yours. You can start killing their mothers, sisters, kids to push them to accept military defeat. And if they see that pretty much ALL mothers, sisters, kids will die - they will give up. That's what happen to Japan.

But instead of inflicting all these horrors you can talk to human being and present an acceptable alternative. I believe in case of Japan an acceptable alternative was easy - Emperor stays and all kinds of honors are given. But Allies didn't even try to speak because killing mother, sister, kids didn't matter anything for them - those were JAPANESE mothers, sisters, kids. They simply said Japanese should agree in writing to Allies doing whatever they want to their country (unconditional surrender) or we go on annihilating Japanese nation (nukes, fire bombing). Due to the different cultural context Japanese command had a natural mistrust to writing such blank checks so they kept on fighting till they could. And US happily went on exterminating Japanese nation until it was necessary.

And I don't buy propaganda stuff (in the article) that Japanese commanders wanted some warm personal place in after-war Japan. A good deal of these guys took their lives because humiliation was the only way out and they could not live with that. So they could have just as well taken their lives earlier for the sake of their country.

1. Imperial Japan command was responsible for the war crimes. There's no arguing about that. And for that they should burn in hell.

2. May be I missed some historical document (no irony here) but all these calculations of how many people died each month the war dragged on appeared only way AFTER WWII as a means of justification of US actions. At the time US leadership was concerned only about the US military losses and they didn't care about the rest.

3. I do not equate the ends the US and Japan were pursuing in the war but I do equate the means of achieving them.

[IMHO]

Sorry, would let it go, but I have to ask as I am not actually sure of your answer to this question, actually questions.

Is it your feeling the US could just have left the exisiting power structure in Japan in authority?

Would you have also considered that an acceptable option in the war in Europe?

No need to explain, just looking to see if my understanding of what you think the alternative would be is correct. Though if your answer to #1 is yes and #2 to no I guess I would like to understand why the difference.

I think no for both cases. Having seen WWII start after WWI that was legitimately considered too risky. The difference is actually:

1. I believe that could have been achieved with less loss of civilian life if Allies talked to Japan and guaranteed all kinds of ceremonial honors. But Allies wanted a blank check in writing first and that was a bad strategy with inflexibly honor-minded Japanese commanders.

2. I believe exterminating civilians as a way of breaking the will of leaders is not acceptable. Again you can make a (favorable) comparison to modern times - no one is consciously and deliberately firebombing Pashtun villages to push Taliban into submission. Even though it might have brought in victory sooner and with less loss of American lives.

[IMHO]

What bugs me is that you have moralized the situation to the point where it has completely flipped on it's head.

Not completely. IJ were "genocidal beasts". And they should burn in hell for that. US just didn't care about Japanese civilian casualties to stop the genocidal beasts.

The US applied precisely as much violence as was necessary to achieve the goals of it and it's allies - if there was any similarity between IJ and the US, then the Japanese surrender would have just been the beginning of the massacre.

Agree. Good point. You can actually make it even stronger by asking a simple question. If massive Japanese civilian casualties were the only course of action to stop Japan should US and Allies have done this. And remembering those 17 million dead and counting I'd be bound to agree they should.

[Michael Emrys]

In speaking of civilian deaths and whether or not they are justified, it is well to reflect on the idea of "a nation in arms". Civilians have always supported the military whether they wanted to or not, in the form of food at a minimum. After the beginning of the industrial revolution, this became even more critical as armies became dependent on a steady supply of manufactured goods. These were produced in factories manned by civilians, who by extension became a major factor in a nation's military power. By the beginning of the twentieth century it was recognized that victory in war might well depend on destroying the enemy nation's productive capacity.

Mass bombing of cities is a pretty blunt instrument, but at the time of WW II it was virtually the only instrument the belligerents had to hand to reduce their enemies productive capacity. Or so it was perceived. As we now know, sinking Japan's merchant fleet and strangling its flow of strategic materials did a pretty good job of shutting down its productive capacity. But it never shut it off absolutely.

You mentioned the fire bombing of Tokyo. The military rationale for this was that the capital was also a major producer of war goods. The problem was that this production was not concentrated in a few factories. A lot of it was dispersed into small machine shops in residential neighborhoods, often in people's back yards. It was not possible to attack them without attacking the neighborhoods where they were.

Was this overkill in light of the scarcity of strategic materials? We now know that to some extent it was. But that was not known at the time. What was known was that the Japanese government intended to kill as many Allied troops as they could with whatever means came to hand. Thus it behooved the Allied leadership to reduce those means in whatever way possible. It would have required a leadership of quite extraordinary sensibility as well as exceptional courage to have withheld anything whatsoever that might delay a victorious end to the war.

Michael

[Thomm]

Civilians have always supported the military whether they wanted to or not, in the form of food at a minimum.

:eek:

Best regards,

Thomm

[Michael Emrys]

You do put an unusual spin on things, Thomm.

:D

Michael

[IMHO]

In speaking of civilian deaths and whether or not they are justified, it is well to reflect on the idea of "a nation in arms". Civilians have always supported the military whether they wanted to or not, in the form of food at a minimum. After the beginning of the industrial revolution, this became even more critical as armies became dependent on a steady supply of manufactured goods. These were produced in factories manned by civilians, who by extension became a major factor in a nation's military power. By the beginning of the twentieth century it was recognized that victory in war might well depend on destroying the enemy nation's productive capacity.

Mass bombing of cities is a pretty blunt instrument, but at the time of WW II it was virtually the only instrument the belligerents had to hand to reduce their enemies productive capacity. Or so it was perceived. As we now know, sinking Japan's merchant fleet and strangling its flow of strategic materials did a pretty good job of shutting down its productive capacity. But it never shut it off absolutely.

You mentioned the fire bombing of Tokyo. The military rationale for this was that the capital was also a major producer of war goods. The problem was that this production was not concentrated in a few factories. A lot of it was dispersed into small machine shops in residential neighborhoods, often in people's back yards. It was not possible to attack them without attacking the neighborhoods where they were.

Was this overkill in light of the scarcity of strategic materials? We now know that to some extent it was. But that was not known at the time. What was known was that the Japanese government intended to kill as many Allied troops as they could with whatever means came to hand. Thus it behooved the Allied leadership to reduce those means in whatever way possible. It would have required a leadership of quite extraordinary sensibility as well as exceptional courage to have withheld anything whatsoever that might delay a victorious end to the war.

Michael

Well... I'm sure Allied commanders intended to kill as many Axis troops as they could with whatever means came to hand. It was their direct responsibility actually. So

1. Japanese commanders where dumb they didn't bomb civilian population of Oahu.

2. Germans and Japanese where morons they didn't spray chemical and biological agents over American and British cities.

Do you agree?

[Magpie_Oz]

1. Japanese commanders where dumb they didn't bomb civilian population of Oahu.

That's because they couldn't, their bombers didn't carry enough ordnance to meaningfully attack a city

2. Germans and Japanese where morons they didn't spray chemical and biological agents over American and British cities.

Again because they couldn't didn't have a delivery system.

I can say however that the Japanese did drop Mustard Gas on Australia, I have seen an unexploded Mustard Gas bomb left over from an air raid on Horn Island in the Torres Strait.

[IMHO]

That's because they couldn't, their bombers didn't carry enough ordnance to meaningfully attack a city

Again because they couldn't didn't have a delivery system.

I can say however that the Japanese did drop Mustard Gas on Australia, I have seen an unexploded Mustard Gas bomb left over from an air raid on Horn Island in the Torres Strait.

You've got me on this, Magpie

[sburke]

I think no for both cases. Having seen WWII start after WWI that was legitimately considered too risky. The difference is actually:

1. I believe that could have been achieved with less loss of civilian life if Allies talked to Japan and guaranteed all kinds of ceremonial honors. But Allies wanted a blank check in writing first and that was a bad strategy with inflexibly honor-minded Japanese commanders.

You keep using that expression about honor minded Japanese. Don't get me wrong, I love going to Japan and spend time at least once a year with my wife's family, but I think in this case it is a misunderstanding of the culture and the concept. The die hards were not fighting out of any position of honor. Some of them were even prepared to attack the Emperor, a uniquely dishonorable thought within Japanese society (and this last is not just a possibility, they did attempt a coup, it simply failed). They were fighting for power and any "ceremonial" conditions were not what this was about. These guys were fundamentally unwilling to give up power and felt they still had enough cards on the table to play to keep it. If that cost a few hundred thousand or even a million Japanese, they didn't care. To give you some idea of how these guys thought, the expression for a new draftee was based on the cost of the postage on the draft letter.

[JonS]

I can say however that the Japanese did drop Mustard Gas on Australia, I have seen an unexploded Mustard Gas bomb left over from an air raid on Horn Island in the Torres Strait.

Not that I've any particular inclination to defend the Japanese military, are you sure that was a Japanese bomb? The Allies conducted quite a few ... interesting experiments on their own troops in the far north of Queensland.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2009/5309T121.pdf (10MB PDF)

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CB8QFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dva.gov.au%2Fpensions_and_compensation%2Fpensions_and_rates%2Fclarke_review%2FDocuments%2Fch9_12.pdf&rct=j&q=horn%20island%20torres%20strait%20mustard%20gas&ei=HRAzTtWXEouNmQWOg8jvCg&usg=AFQjCNEfpq497wdDzjnKaWvxQLapJd_t-Q&cad=rja (another PDF)

[IMHO]

Not that I've any particular inclination to defend the Japanese military

Yeah... That place is mine

[Magpie_Oz]

Not that I've any particular inclination to defend the Japanese military, are you sure that was a Japanese bomb? The Allies conducted quite a few ... interesting experiments on their own troops in the far north of Queensland.

I know the experiments that you mean, I have been to that site as well but that was on the mainland. I've also been to the site where an "atom bomb" (actually a huge pile of TNT) was tested on jungle terrain.

I saw the bomb, with Japanese writing on the side it and identified it later. I have a photo of it some where but God knows were we are talking nearly 30 years ago now.

[JonS]

I know the experiments that you mean, I have been to that site as well but that was on the mainland.

There were trial bomb drops on some islands off the banana bending coastline too.

I've also been to the site where an "atom bomb" (actually a huge pile of TNT) was tested on jungle terrain.

That one's hilarious You can imagine the conversations ... "So, ok. We need to simulate an atomic bomb. Bruce, you go out and collect 20 thousand tons of HE. Bruce, build a tower to hold it all. And you, Bruce, go talk to those army blokes down the road. Tell them we need some soldiers to walk towards the bomb after we light the fuze."

I saw the bomb, with Japanese writing on the side it and identified it later.

Fair enough. Chain of evidence, being certain of what you saw, being certain what you saw is what it is claimed to be, and all that. It's quite a substantial accusation to make, and the Aust govt would have no - as far as I can see - reason to avoid telling the whole world about it at the time. Not that the Japanese were above using chemical - or biological - weapons elsewhere.

Jon

[C'Rogers]

I brought COIN as another philosophy of war. Your opposing force is made up of human beings just like yours.

They both might be humans, but the difference in technology and logistical support are tremendous. The modern US has such a great superiority in fire power, supplies, communications, and information that makes alternatives to 'standard' military operations is viable.

There is also the issue of support for the country being occupied. Germany/Japan could have put up unified opposition to a US military presence. Afghanistan/Iraq certainly don't love the US, but don't have a central authority that they want to rally behind. Given the enemy that the US is fighting makes COIN operations, and not bombing cities, viable.

History though still has to be written on the success of these types of tactics. Two things that I think aren't really arguable is that the terrors suffered by the Germans and Japanese in the war were hellish, but both emerged better (in the since of better for the world community) nations after the war. We have no idea were our current tactics will take us.

Just for the record, I agree that the US could have ended the war earlier. The Emperor is still in Japan, and was never really the main villain to begin with. But I understand that I'm seeing this with hindsight.

I believe in case of Japan an acceptable alternative was easy - Emperor stays and all kinds of honors are given. But Allies didn't even try to speak because killing mother, sister, kids didn't matter anything for them

The US was open to talks and talks about surrender happened. The Japan wanted the Emperor to remain intact. The US did not see that as an option. See earlier comments about "breaking" the Japanese military to avoid future conflicts.

Other then that, nothing I can add to Michael's points about inability to separate the war machine supply from the civilians.

[WayneB]

Think that the biggest asset the germans could have achieved would have been a victory in North Africa and the occupation of Egypt. It would have been a tangible threat to the Russian South and denied the British to have any kind of large bases in the Eastern med. Not to mention how that would have affected the Pacific War without the Suez to transfer supplies to and from the Indian/Pacific theaters.

[sburke]

Just for the record, I agree that the US could have ended the war earlier. The Emperor is still in Japan, and was never really the main villain to begin with. But I understand that I'm seeing this with hindsight.

The US was open to talks and talks about surrender happened. The Japan wanted the Emperor to remain intact. The US did not see that as an option. See earlier comments about "breaking" the Japanese military to avoid future conflicts.

Actually the Emperor wasn't the stopping point of discussion. According to the information provided in the article cited earlier The US already had intelligence that the Japanese would still refuse an offer that the Emperor stay in power as part of the surrender. They simply did not want to surrender at all. The US would have had to settle for a negotiated ceasefire and then wrangle through negotiations after that - what was not acceptable to the Allies is that the people who had started the war would remain in authority.

[Michael Emrys]

The Japan wanted the Emperor to remain intact. The US did not see that as an option.

No, as sburke has noted and as the way things played out, that was not the sticking point. In the peace feelers Japan sent out they were demanding to keep possession of all the conquered lands they still held and also to disarm their own forces and try their own war criminals. Those three conditions were absolutely unacceptable for what I consider obvious reasons. What's more, the leadership was insisting on those same conditions right up until the time the Emperor told them to throw it in.

Michael

[RockinHarry]

Simply said....no Hitler = no war.

Hitler (and his clique of psychopatic followers) + war and in charge of everything = automatic loss.

Even if a Hitler would´ve delegated responsibilities to able military and industrial experts (..instead of "relyable" political yes sayers), leaves the fact that a dictatorship aiming at suppression, total exploitation and annihilation of certain ethnics, can´t survive the overall resistance of those beeing affected, very long.

No matter who ruled germany at that time, the worst that could have happened in the 1930/40ies, would´ve been a Stalin attempting to spread world communism over peaceful europe and elsewhere.

my 2 cents as wannabe historian

[sburke]

Years ago I can remember reading a NY Times book of headlines. One of the things that really amazed me was the civil war raging in Germany post WW I. History classes in the American public school system usually only got as far as WW 1 and then rushed through the 20th century to be able to finish up the school year.

Before one can make any kind of predictions or theorize on what might have happened without Hitler one has to understand just how complicated things were after the First World War. The rise of Soviet Russia, political chaos in Germany, the emergence of Japan from hundreds of years of isolation shooting to the front of the world military scene. The world was a powder keg and there wasn't the same attitude about trying to avoid war or the international bodies present that we are used to seeing.

Japan in particular had a very confused relationship to the international community. Japan narrowly avoided being treated like China by the West. In fact it was observing Western behavior in China that was the school of International diplomacy for Japan. One of the worst cases of greed in international behavior that one can imagine. All the western powers had their hands in it and Britain had basically become the worlds biggest drug dealer to finance it's global position. Imagine the Columbian drug cartels as the Worlds largest economic power and you get some idea of the scale of the opium trade. The White House actively encouraged Japan in the 1905 war with Russia and then undermined Japan's position in the treaty afterwards. The Japanese distrust of the US at that point was very high and it was at that moment that Japan realized who it's main competition was going to be for economic hegemony in Asia. Before one criticizes Japanese behavior in WW 2 one needs to look at who they learned from. The US occupation of the Phillipines was extremely brutal and a clear example if the Japanese needed one that occupation and brutal oppression was apparently acceptable to the West. This doesn't excuse Japanese behavior, but it does mean that the West in all honesty has to be a little less indignant if we don't want to come off as total hypocrites. The British, French, Dutch, Germans, Russians, Portugese, Spanish all had their hands in Asia and were not exactly friendly mentors.

If not Hitler, I suspect there would have been some other leadership to beat the drums of war for Germany. Germany and France had been fighting wars for decades, Russia was fair game for anyone willing to take the shot and Japan and the US were bound to be heading for a showdown. Humanity has still not learned to peacefully resolve conflicts, there is no reason to think that 1940 would not have been a global conflict just because we were short one lunatic, there were plenty more to go around.