Today in Supreme Court History: August 6, 1792

8/6/1792: Justice Thomas Johnson takes judicial oath.

Justice Thomas Johnson

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Shortest tenure in Court history. Going by this portrait, shortest attention span too.

[kotodama]

I was going to say, going by the portrait, he joined the Court as a teenage prodigy.

[Syd Henderson]

He also authored the Supreme Court's first written opinion.

[Cal Cetín]

A teenaged Prodigy?

"I got the poison, I got the remedy
I got the legal and equitable remedy."

[Commenter_XY]

Today also, remember those who died in Hiroshima.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That’s always what I think when I wake up on August 6. But I couldn’t find a way to tie it to the Supreme Court.

[kotodama]

Korematsu seems like a possible tying method.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I thought about that, but the connection seemed too attenuated.

[Bob from Ohio]

Today also, remember those who were saved because of Hiroshima.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Zero.

A long line of generals and admirals say it was unnecessary.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Your feigned ignorance is unsurprising. The real answer is millions:

1. The Japanese war in China was killing 100,000 Chinese every month.

2. The planned invasion in November was expected to result in a million casualties for the US alone, and Japanese casualties on Okinawa were a 1-for-1 match but almost entirely deaths, not just wounded.

3. The Soviets did not share their plans, other than promising to declare war 3 months after Germany surrendered, which happened to be the day of the second atomic bombing.

4. The Japanese peace feelers were not surrender or even withdrawal from their conquests, but a freeze of the status quo, which was entirely unacceptable (see point 1).

5. The alternative to an invasion was a blockade, which would have taken years to starve Japan into surrender, including withdrawal from occupied lands (see point 1 again).

6. The effect of the atomic bombings was unknown. The Manhattan project scientists should have known better than anyone, but they still watched the test bombing, there were still proposals long after the bombings had shown what radiation did to build canals using nuclear explosives, there were experiments to design a nuclear powered airplane, and the Orion project even imagined a spaceship powered by exploding nuclear bombs.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Churchill, MacArthur, Leahy, and many others believed the bombs were unnecessary. Japan was already defeated and had already sued for peace. There was no need to invade their homeland. They were in a similar position to Germany's at the end of World War I, when Germany surrendered without being invaded.

That said, I have a more nuanced view than you do (which is admittedly a low bar). I think it was a mistake to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, but an understandable mistake. It was a definite way of ending history's bloodiest conflict. (The Nagasaki bomb was less defensible.)

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No, Japan had NOT sued for peace. Every peace feeler they put out was for a truce, a freeze, an acceptance of the status quo.

Do you know why the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender? Because they didn't want a repeat of WW I, with the Germans inventing the "stab in the back". They wanted a military occupation to prevent such a recurrence in a third world war. Japan's peace feelers would all have repeated that.

As for Nagasaki being less defensible, are you nuts? The Japanese had had three days to think it over. They needed the prodding.

The atom bombings saved a net 5-10 million lives. If it took another 50-100 thousand dead to do so, that was only 1% of the lives saved, and well worth it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"believed "

Even famous people are wrong.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And given that there was a short and unsuccessful coup attempt after the emperor's surrender speech was recorded but before it was broadcast after the second atomic bombing, the US reluctance to put any faith in peace feelers, or in plans to drop the first atomic bomb on an unoccupied island as a demonstration, seems to have been justified.

Looked at in hindsight, the only counter to any of these arguments is that the Soviet invasion helped influence the Japanese decision to surrender. But no one at the time knew what the effects would be, no one knows now if it would have been enough on its own, and without the atomic bombings, it seems at least plausible to imagine the Soviets would have occupied much of Japan, possible all of Honshu, given Stalin's proven lack of regard for his own soldiers' lives.

In short, given what they knew at the time, it was the only logical decision, and horrible as it was, everyone, Japanese included, should be grateful for it. War is hell, and armchair quarterbacking long after the fact is as useful as wondering how things would have been different if faster than light travel had been available.

[GKHoffman]

There was strong Japanese resistance to surrender even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the Emperor's insistence on surrender (after the Allies agreed not to try him for war crimes), overruling his senior military officers and sparking a revolt by lower level fire-breathers, that ended the war. Source: Ian W. Toll's War in the Western Pacific. Even after the bombs dropped, ending the war was a close run thing.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It absolutely was. There was an attempted palace coup by junior officers trying to kidnap the Emperor to keep the surrender at bay. Some pilots went on kamikaze missions after the surrender.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it seems at least plausible to imagine the Soviets would have occupied much of Japan, possible all of Honshu"

Think of the potential for a more violent Cold War if the Soviets had occupied part of Japan. How would we have fought in Korea for instance with Soviet troops so close to our bases in Japan?

[Dan Schiavetta]

OK, accuse Churchill, MacArthur and Leahy of armchair quarterbacking!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And finally, by your own definition of how Nazi Germany's U-boat war was entirely defensive, so were the atom bombs. You don't get to redefine words to suit your end.

[Sarcastr0]

There is still strong disagreement among historians on both the necessity and Truman's motives regarding the bomb. Anyone here who is *sure* is just fooling themselves.

My current opinion is that both bombs were needed, and Truman acted to save American soldiers. But I've gone back and forth, especially on that last bit - no shortage of evidence we had one eye on the USSR at the time.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with you: They were necessary to end the war quickly. I do, though, remember the ~75K who died. Today and Monday (Nagasaki) - where thousands more died.

[Bob from Ohio]

People died every day between 1931 and 1945 in the China/Pacific War. Thousands and even tens of thousands.

Do you remember them each and every day?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes Bob from Ohio. Always. WW2 vets are now dying off; not too many left. They are worthy of veneration and extreme respect. They were our Greatest generation.

It was not my intent to create controversy or debate. The Japanese are our ally. We fought a war; they fought bravely, well, and fanatically. In defeat, the relationship between our countries grew to where it is today, which is pretty strong. We will absolutely go to war to defend them.