NationStates Jolt Archive

I was blessed with an excellent government teacher=A few viewed him as a Nazi, but he was actually one of the most intelligent men I've ever met. As an aside, he made a comment to the class one day to do some research on the timing of the Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki-I finally have, and I've found that the necessity of their use is not an issue-It just wasn't. The interesting fact is to take a look at why they were used(and it's all Russia's fault).

The traditional argument is that it saved lives-It was needed because the Japanese had shown they would fight to the death, so we had to force a surrender. You can see the argument played out here- http://allfreeessays.com/student/Atomic_Bomb_Necessary.html

(forgive the...seediness, of that site, compared to the good funding of my other sources, but, I don't see many people running around yelling 'Let's have more nukes,' except for a few notable countries)

The Japanese were already looking for surrender. It is shown multiple times-

July 7
Truman leaves for Potsdam on the Augusta accompanied by Secretary of State Byrnes . They are one day at sea, when Byrnes receives telegram from Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew describing a peace overture from the Japanese military attaché in Stockholm. The attaché offered a negotiated settlement of the war if the US would guarantee the reign of the Emperor.

Intercepted transmissions between Russia and Japan also show attempts at a surrender, and our own intelligence and cabinet leaders also believed surrender was a possibility.

There was no small amount of history between the Japanese and the Russians-The Russo-Japanese war(in which the Russians were smashed) is enough for the Russians to go after the Japanese now that they've got their war machine going and the Germans are defeated. Funny enough, that's what they did.


"Just spend [sic] a couple of hours with Stalin .. He'll be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about."-President Truman

"exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in the light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all other moral responsibilities which are involved."-Excerpt from the Petition to the President of the United States, which was signed by 155 Manhattan Project scientists, and you can find here -> http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/connelly-matthew/corr_connelly_1945-09-06.htm

"Aboard Augusta - President, Leahy , JFB agreed Japs looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific.) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."-excerpt from the diary of Walter Brown, asst. to Secretary of State under Truman

"Using atomic bombs against Japan is one of the greatest blunders of history." -Leo Szilard, writer of the Petition(seen previously).

"[T]he greatest thing in history."-President Truman, upon hearing about Hiroshima

August 6, 1945
Hiroshima(estimates)
Immediate deaths:90-100K.
End of the year deaths:140K
Total Deaths:200K

Little Boy detonates 1,900 feet above the city of Hiroshima. August 7th, the decision is made to warning pamphlets on Japanese cities.

August 8th, the Soviets enter the war.

August 8th-9th(I've read multiple of each date)
Nagasaki-Immediate Casualties
Deaths:73,884
Injuries:74,909

Estimated total deaths:200,000


"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first instance to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians."-President Truman, August 9th Radio Broadcast.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."-Official Bombing Survey Report

95%-The rough percent of civilian deaths at H and N.

August 10-The day the United States dropped warning leaflets on Nagasaki.

Japanese physicists noticed high levels of radioactivity at the site of Hiroshima.

"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so, even if no atomic bombs had been dropped, is the opinion of Major-General Claire Chennault .."-New York Times

"Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon for a long time, I have to say that for the present, it is a menace."-Albert Einstein

I receive quotes, info, etc., from the previous websites (specifically http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/1940/1945.htm ) and http://www.psratlanta.org/nucleartimeline.htm as well as Wikipedia's file on "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So-What was the real reason of those bombings? To scare the commie bastards.

Did it work?

Wellllll...kinda.

"December 24
U.S. Embassy in Moscow warns of an all-out Soviet effort to build atomic bomb."

The July 7th overture for peace could not have been accepted by the US owing to previous commitments to its United Nations allies.

All the more reason for them not to have dropped the bombs. Absolutely ridiculous.

Killing innocent people to scare another nation that was never really a threat in the first place? Ugh.

All the more reason for them not to have dropped the bombs. Absolutely ridiculous.

Killing innocent people to scare another nation that was never really a threat in the first place? Ugh.

Arguably it saved japanese lives though. It depends on which side of the "why did they surrender?" debate you are though.

Personally, looking at Sapei, I think anything that foreclosed an amphibious assault on the home islands was a good idea.

Arguably it saved japanese lives though. It depends on which side of the "why did they surrender?" debate you are though.

Personally, looking at Sapei, I think anything that foreclosed an amphibious assault on the home islands was a good idea.

Could be. Nobody will ever know for sure, though.

It still pisses me off, now even moreso after reading this.

How many times has this been debated?

Once more: The US had spelled out the only acceptable terms for surrender, unconditional. It was stated again and again and the Japanese kept refusing. It should be noted that the Japanese also admit to sueing for peace after Midway. Also, when it is stated that the Japanese wanted to keep the emperor, this doesn't mean as the figurehead he is now, this means with the full absolute athority granted to him under the Meiji Constitution.

THAT was what they wanted.

And please note that the Japanese defence plan of the home islands was entitled 10 Millions Deaths with Honor, they were prepared to fight till the last man.

Was the bombs meant as a warning to the USSR, yes, I believe that was part of their purpose, but I alo believe that they were indeed meant to end the war and forestall an invasion that would have cost millions of lives.

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough about nukes already!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't know enough about WW2 to discuss it inteligently so please don't!!!!!!

Yes, sure the Niponese were about to surrender, just as all the way up to December Seventh 1940 they were willing to negotiate the end of the blockade of the Niponese home islands. Sure they made overtures to Russia, who at the time hadn't even sent a single military unit offensively against Japan, I tell you they would have taken it in a heart beat, Your sources are flawed, The U.S' was NOT warning the commies, they weren't even mildly displeased with the communists until AFTER the end of ww2, so why would the warn them?
It is true that the emperor wanted to surender but the emperor was far from being the one in power, instead there was a sort of council of powerful lords/rich men that were in control and they did not want surender.

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough about nukes already!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't know enough about WW2 to discuss it inteligently so please don't!!!!!!

Yes, sure the Niponese were about to surrender, just as all the way up to December Seventh 1940 they were willing to negotiate the end of the blockade of the Niponese home islands. Sure they made overtures to Russia, who at the time hadn't even sent a single military unit offensively against Japan, I tell you they would have taken it in a heart beat, Your sources are flawed, The U.S' was NOT warning the commies, they weren't even mildly displeased with the communists until AFTER the end of ww2, so why would the warn them?
It is true that the emperor wanted to surender but the emperor was far from being the one in power, instead there was a sort of council of powerful lords/rich men that were in control and they did not want surender.

Yah, but there are some (not myself) that claim that it was the entry of the USSR into the war that prompted the surrender, not the bombs.

I don't believe that myself, but there it is.

Actually they dropped them to end the war as quickly as possible, because they knew that the more occuiped countries that the Soviets took, the more they could set up puppet governments like they were already planning out in Poland and such. If we had done it the regular way, they would own most of the northernmost islands of Japan, and North and South Korea. And of course those areas would become Communist controlled.

And the US and Soviets were already against each other before World War 2.

If fact before they allied, alot of the Soviet anti German proprganda blamed the US and the Birtish claiming that 'capitalism fathered Fascism.'

I dont think it was nessicarily a 'good thing', but you have to consider the attitudes of the time, there was no way anybody was going to accept a surrender from 'those damn japs' without some kind of serious ownage first.
I beleive that at this period the tales of the Japanese treatment of POW's was getting out, and people were rather pissed.
In any case, I dont think FDR was fully informed about atomic weapons and their aftereffects, you have to remember that we didnt have a CLUE about radiation until the 50's.
But ignorance is not nessicarily an excuse, especially when it comes to 400,000 people

HOWEVER

I DO oppose the idiots who say, "America is evil because they massacred these people in Japan during WWII! Our nations never did anything like that!", which is sadly a commonplace arguement in many discussions (although I havent seen it recently on NS), where many peope simply ignore their countries firebombing, carpet bombing, gasing and massacring of various cities at the same period of time.

If we had done it the regular way, they would own most of the northernmost islands of Japan
Um... They DO own the northernmost islands of Japan. The return of those islands is the sticking point for Japan and Russia to sign a peace treaty to end WWII. It's only been 60 years, I'm sure they'll get around to it someday.

http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=37160

read those.

it's all i have to say.

fare theeeee

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough about nukes already!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't know enough about WW2 to discuss it inteligently so please don't!!!!!!

Yes, sure the Niponese were about to surrender, just as all the way up to December Seventh 1940 they were willing to negotiate the end of the blockade of the Niponese home islands. Sure they made overtures to Russia, who at the time hadn't even sent a single military unit offensively against Japan, I tell you they would have taken it in a heart beat, Your sources are flawed, The U.S' was NOT warning the commies, they weren't even mildly displeased with the communists until AFTER the end of ww2, so why would the warn them?
It is true that the emperor wanted to surender but the emperor was far from being the one in power, instead there was a sort of council of powerful lords/rich men that were in control and they did not want surender.


Ah. Yes. Your capitalization and large amounts of exclamation points have convinced me. I am proven wrong!


Displeasure and fear are two different things.

They hadn't *at the time*. But war is all about pre-emptives.

August 24
Soviet Union announces that the Japanese Manchurian Army has surrendered.

You haven't even said anything about Truman's diary comment about fearing vying for peace through Russia as opposed to Sweden!

I hadn't posted these, either.

July 24
Walter Brown , special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes , writes in his journal that Byrnes was now "hoping for time, believing after atomic bomb Japan will surrender and Russia will not get in so much on the kill, thereby being in a position to press claims against China."

"the Emperor, supported by the premier, foreign minister and Navy minister, declared for peace; the army minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur."-United States Strategic Bombing Survey(date of meeting of Supreme War Direction Council, June 20th, 1945).

In reference to "Unconditional Surrender"

June 9
Chief of Staff General George Marshall , in a memo to Secretary of War Stimson, writes, "We should cease talking about unconditional surrender of Japan and begin to define our true objective in terms of defeat and disarmament."

In reference to "lives saved"

June 15, 1945
Joint War Plans Committee (JWPC), an advisory committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concludes that about 40,000 Americans would die in the planned two stage assault on Japan.

In referrence to the "overture for peace" on July 7th


President Truman lands at Antwerp on his way to Potsdam meeting. Byrnes has convinced him to drop Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, which had provided assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his throne as a constitutional monarch.

The Japanese wanted that-and that was all.

Sure they made overtures to Russia, who at the time hadn't even sent a single military unit offensively against Japan, I tell you they would have taken it in a heart beat, Your sources are flawed, The U.S' was NOT warning the commies, they weren't even mildly displeased with the communists until AFTER the end of ww2, so why would the warn them?
It is true that the emperor wanted to surender but the emperor was far from being the one in power, instead there was a sort of council of powerful lords/rich men that were in control and they did not want surender.

Ok the info he mentions came from the Russian archives. Japan made ovetures to the Russians since they still had an embassy with them.

You are right on the warning. Dresdan was the warning.

Finally, don't think we were all lovey dovey with the communists. It was a case of th enemy of my enemy......

Ah. Yes. Your capitalization and large amounts of exclamation points have convinced me. I am proven wrong!


Displeasure and fear are two different things.

They hadn't *at the time*. But war is all about pre-emptives.

August 24
Soviet Union announces that the Japanese Manchurian Army has surrendered.

You haven't even said anything about Truman's diary comment about fearing vying for peace through Russia as opposed to Sweden!

I hadn't posted these, either.

July 24
Walter Brown , special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes , writes in his journal that Byrnes was now "hoping for time, believing after atomic bomb Japan will surrender and Russia will not get in so much on the kill, thereby being in a position to press claims against China."

"the Emperor, supported by the premier, foreign minister and Navy minister, declared for peace; the army minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur."-United States Strategic Bombing Survey(date of meeting of Supreme War Direction Council, June 20th, 1945).

In reference to "Unconditional Surrender"

June 9
Chief of Staff General George Marshall , in a memo to Secretary of War Stimson, writes, "We should cease talking about unconditional surrender of Japan and begin to define our true objective in terms of defeat and disarmament."

In reference to "lives saved"

June 15, 1945
Joint War Plans Committee (JWPC), an advisory committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concludes that about 40,000 Americans would die in the planned two stage assault on Japan.

In referrence to the "overture for peace" on July 7th


President Truman lands at Antwerp on his way to Potsdam meeting. Byrnes has convinced him to drop Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, which had provided assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his throne as a constitutional monarch.

The Japanese wanted that-and that was all.


You do know that hirohito was a constitutional monarch before and during WWII don't you?

In any case, the US could not unilaterally accept Japan's surrender. It had to be acceptable to all allies. As far as I know, all Japanese overtures at this time entailed the Emporer retaining some type of authority. By no account would this be tolerated, and until they offered surrender without terms, there was no chance of peace.

Marshall's objection to "unconditional" surrender was one of style not substance. He basically believed that it could be packaged in a more palateble way, and hence speed the conclusion of the was. He never, however, believed that any guarantees should be offered to the Japanese in exchange for a surrender. (And in the earlier overtures, the japanese were essentially seeking guarantees).

The Japanese were already looking for surrender. It is shown multiple times-

Actually that was the OLD believed possibility. That they were going to surrender. However they found a document by Tojo stated that they were NOT going to surrender even after the first bomb. Google the subject and look for that note. It came out on the history channel.

Second, your professor is not that intelligent. He does not understand the bushido culture that was present in Japan. He also does not really understand how seriously ingrained that belief was nor the fact that it calls for never surrendering. The Japanese were damned determined to continue fighting the war. Its idiots like you and your professor however that refuse to acknowledge the obvious that creates a backlash by the general populace that STILL knows more than you unfortunately despite your belief that you are well informed.

The truth is, you are not. You and him have a set bias and ignore all the crap the people had do deal with on the American side with the Japanese. You only see two bombs and think of evil instead of all the evil that lead up to those two events.

You do know that hirohito was a constitutional monarch before and during WWII don't you?

In any case, the US could not unilaterally accept Japan's surrender. It had to be acceptable to all allies. As far as I know, all Japanese overtures at this time entailed the Emporer retaining some type of authority. By no account would this be tolerated, and until they offered surrender without terms, there was no chance of peace.

Marshall's objection to "unconditional" surrender was one of style not substance. He basically believed that it could be packaged in a more palateble way, and hence speed the conclusion of the was. He never, however, believed that any guarantees should be offered to the Japanese in exchange for a surrender. (And in the earlier overtures, the japanese were essentially seeking guarantees).


Yes, I do.

Potsdam Declaration
July 26, 1945

It was issued to Japan by the United States and other countries-Take note of an earlier comment from one of my sources(for which I don't have a date-I apologize)

"President Truman lands at Antwerp on his way to Potsdam meeting. Byrnes has convinced him to drop Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, which had provided assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his throne as a constitutional monarch."

And for your last comment...I got nothin'. However, I ain't like Darwin(who said his entire theory falls apart if one instance can be proved where something evolved that was not in beneficial to the organism).

You do know that hirohito was a constitutional monarch before and during WWII don't you?

In any case, the US could not unilaterally accept Japan's surrender. It had to be acceptable to all allies. As far as I know, all Japanese overtures at this time entailed the Emporer retaining some type of authority. By no account would this be tolerated, and until they offered surrender without terms, there was no chance of peace.

Marshall's objection to "unconditional" surrender was one of style not substance. He basically believed that it could be packaged in a more palateble way, and hence speed the conclusion of the was. He never, however, believed that any guarantees should be offered to the Japanese in exchange for a surrender. (And in the earlier overtures, the japanese were essentially seeking guarantees).
Why could the continued power of an emporer be tolerated. Because it was not the form of gov chosen by the US? Even if the majority of Japanese wanted it? Now there is democracy for you, you can have what ever you want as long as it is the same as we want! I think as the US could pretty much fly over Japan as they wished at that time, the first bomb for demonstration purposes could have been dropped on say a small island off the main land. Surely that way if they had surrendered all this debate would be moot and if not well there was still the option of killing a few hundred thousand women and children as happened.

He does not understand the bushido culture that was present in Japan. He also does not really understand how seriously ingrained that belief was nor the fact that it calls for never surrendering.

Just a nitpick. When talking to a japanese friend he said it was a quasi bushido culture. The Samurai were all gone and we had the wannabes. Samurai would not have done the rape of Nanking.

Interesting guy, his great-uncle was a Pearl Harbor pilot. He admired him until hit got older. Then he understood was a racist jackass he was.....

Actually that was the OLD believed possibility. That they were going to surrender. However they found a document by Tojo stated that they were NOT going to surrender even after the first bomb.

I believe this is what is known as revisionist history. :rolleyes:

Actually that was the OLD believed possibility. That they were going to surrender. However they found a document by Tojo stated that they were NOT going to surrender even after the first bomb. Google the subject and look for that note. It came out on the history channel.

Second, your professor is not that intelligent. He does not understand the bushido culture that was present in Japan. He also does not really understand how seriously ingrained that belief was nor the fact that it calls for never surrendering. The Japanese were damned determined to continue fighting the war. Its idiots like you and your professor however that refuse to acknowledge the obvious that creates a backlash by the general populace that STILL knows more than you unfortunately despite your belief that you are well informed.

The truth is, you are not. You and him have a set bias and ignore all the crap the people had do deal with on the American side with the Japanese. You only see two bombs and think of evil instead of all the evil that lead up to those two events.


I never said it was evil. It's idiots like you who put words in my mouth. Also, excuse me while I declare you an idiot and turn this into a flaming board as opposed to a civilized discussion. If I can be proved wrong I can be proven wrong. Funny enough, every libel you throw at me is probably true about yourself. None of the things I'm saying about you are necessarily true, I'm just saying them to be offensive.
"[You and] [H]im have set bias." Oooh, good grammar there, jerk(note the sarcasm). I'm quoting information and you come in and attack me and say it's all wrong. Give me some sources. How about some intelligent discussion, you green-faced troll.

Ah, yes. Clearly, since "it came out on the history channel," it is fact! "The History Channel" is not the end-all-be-all. It shoves History into Two Hour(at the most) slots with commercials in it. Not a good place to discuss history.

Just as you cannot necessarily compare the leaders of the country to it's citizens, so you cannot necessarily compare the citizens of the country to it's leaders-Who says the Supreme War Direction Council(I believe, I may have switched up some wording) was Bushido? Also, Bushido culture is about saving face-Is there any consideration that such a note was just an attempt to save face? Give me some good arguements besides "IT WAS ON TEH HISTORY CHANNEL!!!11!!!1!!1!1!!" and "You and him r teh idiot!1!!11!1!"

Oh, yeah. I'm done attacking you now, jerkwad.

Up next on FOX: When Good Threads Go Bad!

Yes, I do.

Potsdam Declaration
July 26, 1945

It was issued to Japan by the United States and other countries-Take note of an earlier comment from one of my sources(for which I don't have a date-I apologize)

"President Truman lands at Antwerp on his way to Potsdam meeting. Byrnes has convinced him to drop Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, which had provided assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his throne as a constitutional monarch."

And for your last comment...I got nothin'. However, I ain't like Darwin(who said his entire theory falls apart if one instance can be proved where something evolved that was not in beneficial to the organism).

Well, the point is that although Japan - or at least parts of the Japanese government - may have indeed looked for a surrender option earlier that august, they weren't prepared to proffer it in acceptable form.

Both the US and the UK were adamant that there were to be no guarantees made to Japan in respect of its treatment after the war as part of any surrender. In other words it was not to be a negotiated surrender, with concessions granted in return for japan laying down arms. Japan didn't seem to appreciate that the world had moved on from WWI until after the bomb dropped.

I don't believe they understood this until the bomb was dropped.

Up next on FOX: When Good Threads Go Bad!

Probably somewhat my fault-I'm sorry.

Why could the continued power of an emporer be tolerated. Because it was not the form of gov chosen by the US? Even if the majority of Japanese wanted it? Now there is democracy for you, you can have what ever you want as long as it is the same as we want! I think as the US could pretty much fly over Japan as they wished at that time, the first bomb for demonstration purposes could have been dropped on say a small island off the main land. Surely that way if they had surrendered all this debate would be moot and if not well there was still the option of killing a few hundred thousand women and children as happened.

I imagine the decision to drop the bomb was not undertaken lightly. And there are good reasons not to drop it on a deserted island, not least of which it would have been to easy for the Japanese millitary to hide what happened. Also, at the time there were only two bombs available for use.

As to the type of government that the japanese wanted, the allies were clear that they were to have absolutely no say in the matter after the war. Nor were they to have any assurances as far as expected treatment was concerned. This was the concern the Marshall had about the term "unconditional surrender", he felt that it could be interpreted as the desire to impose a punitive regime after the war, and hence strenghten japanese resolve, when this was anything but the case. (Indeed Japan fared better than Germany).

Just a nitpick. When talking to a japanese friend he said it was a quasi bushido culture. The Samurai were all gone and we had the wannabes. Samurai would not have done the rape of Nanking.

Interesting guy, his great-uncle was a Pearl Harbor pilot. He admired him until hit got older. Then he understood was a racist jackass he was.....

Yep. Well, sort of anyway. Bushido had been on the way out for a long time. And, much live chivalry in Europe, was more of a romantic myth than a reality. For example, several weeks ago I came accross a scholastic paper examining seppuku (aka hara kiri), which found that the actual historically recorded incidence of it was quite low.

However, samurai may well have done something along those lines. One needs only to look at Hideyoshi's adventures in Korea (1590's) to find similar attrocities.

As to the OP, there was quite a bit of discussion on the civilian side of the government. However, the military (primarily) favored continuation of the war. It is questionable, at best, that the civilian government would have even been able to surrender unitl after the bombings.

Also left out so far, is that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Kitakyushu (the primary target for the second bomb) had legitimate high value military targets. While it may be up for debate as to the morality of all out unrestricted warfare in which civilian populations surrounding military targets may be destroyed, it was unquestionably the common practice of the day.

If these cities had been destroyed by conventional incendiary bombing, as Dresden, Tokyo, and Osaka were (and with higher numbers of civilian casualties), I doubt there would ever have been any significant questioning of it.

:D

I will defer to your greator knowledge of the era.

It is intersting comparison with the fire raids. More people died in Tokyo and yet the greator evil was the bombs.

It's probably because it ushered a new era of world obliteration?

Whenever I hear the comments of they should not have been used; I think of one Japanese General's comments when questioned about it. He basically said it was war and if Japan had the bomb, they would have used it.

However, samurai may well have done something along those lines. One needs only to look at Hideyoshi's adventures in Korea (1590's) to find similar attrocities.


I forgot. Have any references to suggest?

:D

I will defer to your greator knowledge of the era.

It is intersting comparison with the fire raids. More people died in Tokyo and yet the greator evil was the bombs.

It's probably because it ushered a new era of world obliteration?

Whenever I hear the comments of they should not have been used; I think of one Japanese General's comments when questioned about it. He basically said it was war and if Japan had the bomb, they would have used it.

Yes, yes, and yes indeed. It's also interesting to note that Japan did have it's own atomic weapons program: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/nuke-ww2.htm

If they had put more effort into it, hadn't split their efforts due to the army-navy rivalry, or had worked more closely with the Germans, the Axis powers might have beat us to the punch on that one.

I forgot. Have any references to suggest?

http://www.samurai-archives.com/hak.html
That's a good start - it's well documented with good primary and secondary sources.

‘Hell cannot be in some other place apart from this.’ These were the words of a Japanese Buddhist monk, who observed his countrymen slaughtering entire families, looting villages, and burning fields while invading Korea. The year was 1587, and it was the second wave of invasions in a conflict that lasted over seven years, ending only 1598, when Japan’s generalissimo Toyotomi Hideyoshi died.

This was also accompanied by the similar sorts of rape and enslavement of Koreans that occured in the colonial period.

However, that site has this to say about it:
Japan would invade Korea again, in 1910. The occupation this time would not be as brutal as the one imposed by Hideyoshi, but no less humbling for the Koreans.

From what I've read, it was the Russians that caused the Japanese surrender as much as the bombs. They were absolutely petrified of what the Russians would do to them in retaliation for the Russo-Japanese war, even though it was some 40 years before. Plus, they knew that the Americans would help to restabilise the country.
The Japanese high command calculated that at least another 15 A-bombs would have to be dropped on the mainland to really affect production of materiel, so it wasn't as big a thing in the surrender as some would make out. It undoubtedly saved lives though.
I've been to the A-bomb museum at Hiroshima and it made me really angry to read some of the 'information' on display. According to the museum, the Americans only dropped it because they hated the Japanese and wanted to test the weapon on live people. It also makes out that the Japanese army went around giving out cuddly toys to children and making great friends in China. It was quite sad to see groups of Americans reading this stuff and saying 'What did we do? We're history's greatest monsters...'

I recall reading somewhere that the Japanese Atomic Bomb was nearing completion in the closing days of the War, and the High Command was intending to use the device on United States assets in the Far East. If anything, it would have given the Japanese a stronger negotiating position for the surrender terms.

Not sure whether its completely true or not.

I've been to the A-bomb museum at Hiroshima and it made me really angry to read some of the 'information' on display. According to the museum, the Americans only dropped it because they hated the Japanese and wanted to test the weapon on live people. It also makes out that the Japanese army went around giving out cuddly toys to children and making great friends in China. It was quite sad to see groups of Americans reading this stuff and saying 'What did we do? We're history's greatest monsters...'

The museum in Nagasaki is better, IMO. The approach taken by the museum and activists in Nagasaki is more of a "war is a really bad thing in general - look what happened here because of a war", while Hiroshima seems to favor a "bad Americans dropped a bomb on poor little us, with no provocation whatsoever" approach. (Note: That's a -slight- exaggeration for effect.) Unfortunately, the Japanese national government and many Japanese take the Hiroshima approach.

Apparently, the Japanese and Germans did share some of thier research, although the Germans were going for a H-bomb, which would have been very difficult to move about due to the huge TNT charge needed to set it off (it wasn't until the mid-fifties until the USSR worked out you could use an A-bomb to trigger it instead - the only non-stolen piece of atomic research they did).
Debatable if they would got something together in time if the Allies had to invade the mainland.
Scary though.

Saying about Hiroshima, I did get one souvenir. On the river bank, I found a broken roof tile and at one end of it, the clay was bubbled up and burnt. It takes several thousand degrees celcius to boil ceramics...
I checked it out with a geiger counter at work when I got back, but any radiation was long-gone. Macarbe, but slightly cool...

Apparently, the Japanese and Germans did share some of thier research, although the Germans were going for a H-bomb, which would have been very difficult to move about due to the huge TNT charge needed to set it off (it wasn't until the mid-fifties until the USSR worked out you could use an A-bomb to trigger it instead - the only non-stolen piece of atomic research they did).
Debatable if they would got something together in time if the Allies had to invade the mainland.
Scary though.

Yep. The site I posted for the Japanese project says:
There are indications that Japan had a more sizable program than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb.

The museum in Nagasaki is better, IMO. The approach taken by the museum and activists in Nagasaki is more of a "war is a really bad thing in general - look what happened here because of a war", while Hiroshima seems to favor a "bad Americans dropped a bomb on poor little us, with no provocation whatsoever" approach. (Note: That's a -slight- exaggeration for effect.) Unfortunately, the Japanese national government and many Japanese take the Hiroshima approach.
Hiroshima has changed quite a bit, it is far more balanced now and consentrates more on the "Never again" statement. Though I was disapointed with how it lightly glossed over some of the Imperial Army's actions in China, but at least it DID mention them, unlike Yasukuni Jinja.

However, it should be noted that many Japanese are aware of why the bombs were dropped and they have pointed out that America also has a tendancy to slide things past, for example the Enola Gay exhbit in the Smithsonian makes no mention of the after effects of the bomb and the destruction unleashed upon Hiroshima.

Up next on FOX: When Good Threads Go Bad!
Call Jerry Springer and Geraldo, they're about to start chucking chairs!!

Hiroshima has changed quite a bit, it is far more balanced now and consentrates more on the "Never again" statement. Though I was disapointed with how it lightly glossed over some of the Imperial Army's actions in China, but at least it DID mention them, unlike Yasukuni Jinja.

However, it should be noted that many Japanese are aware of why the bombs were dropped and they have pointed out that America also has a tendancy to slide things past, for example the Enola Gay exhbit in the Smithsonian makes no mention of the after effects of the bomb and the destruction unleashed upon Hiroshima.

Perhapse the museum has, but the memorials and activist still seem to have those different approaches when I see and hear them on the TV.

As far as many Japanese knowing about the why's of the bomb, I've found the war generation to be more likely to understand it and the younger generations not to.

(And BTW, since you mentioned Yasukuni, have you been following the DY's series on it? Good reading.)

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons....
I was talking to an anti-nuke chap the other week and it occurred to me that nuclear weapons have saved more people than they've ever killed. Without them, the Cold war would have gone 'hot' as there'd have been no deterrent to either side.
discuss...

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons....
I was talking to an anti-nuke chap the other week and it occurred to me that nuclear weapons have saved more people than they've ever killed. Without them, the Cold war would have gone 'hot' as there'd have been no deterrent to either side.
discuss...

No argeument from me on that.

How many times has this been debated?

One to many. As to the originator of this thread, yes it was the russians fault. I've already studied this issue (WWII history my speciality) and have came to the conclusion that Russia wanted Japanese Territory for their own uses so they didn't pass it along. Besides that, as others have stated here, we would only accept unconditional surrender. This was a conditional surrender and therefor, unacceptable.

Once more: The US had spelled out the only acceptable terms for surrender, unconditional. It was stated again and again and the Japanese kept refusing. It should be noted that the Japanese also admit to sueing for peace after Midway. Also, when it is stated that the Japanese wanted to keep the emperor, this doesn't mean as the figurehead he is now, this means with the full absolute athority granted to him under the Meiji Constitution.

Correct on all counts my friends.

THAT was what they wanted.

And you don't give the losing side what they want. :p

And please note that the Japanese defence plan of the home islands was entitled 10 Millions Deaths with Honor, they were prepared to fight till the last man.

And woman and child for that matter.

Was the bombs meant as a warning to the USSR, yes, I believe that was part of their purpose, but I alo believe that they were indeed meant to end the war and forestall an invasion that would have cost millions of lives.

Here here.

I think there were a number of reasons to drop the bomb from a military standpoint:

1) You get to see the effect of your new superweapon in combat, and use the information gained to continue developing your weapons programs.

2) American lives are spared by not having to use a large ground force to destroy a large area if the weapon would work as intended.

3) Since the superweapon would work quicker, it could expedite the surrender process for the Japanese under unconditional terms.

4) If the weapon works, the Soviets would see it.


Frankly, I don't think the United States really saw number 4 for what it was. The US government effectively gave Stalin control of Eastern Europe by war's end. By the next year the nuclear arsenal had 50-odd weapons and the Soviets were still 4 years away from one of their own. A more assertive policy would've told the Soviets to GTFO of Europe or face the bomb and might have saved us from facing the Cold War.

My dad, who is a pacifist, always said this:

"They could've just told the Japanese that they have the bomb, then choose some unihabited island, tell the Japanese they're gonna drop it there, and then they can watch."

So getting them to surrender by demonstrating power can hardly have been the entire reason.

My dad, who is a pacifist, always said this:

"They could've just told the Japanese that they have the bomb, then choose some unihabited island, tell the Japanese they're gonna drop it there, and then they can watch."

You know this was talked about right? It was also rejected because the Military government wasn't going to be cowed by the test itself. Hell, if it were that easy, they would've surrendered after the 1st bomb on Hiroshima. They didn't. The military government was ready to fight to the death. It was only after Nagasaki did the EMPEROR and NOT the Military Government, ordered the surrender.

You know this was talked about right? It was also rejected because the Military government wasn't going to be cowed by the test itself. Hell, if it were that easy, they would've surrendered after the 1st bomb on Hiroshima. They didn't. The military government was ready to fight to the death. It was only after Nagasaki did the EMPEROR and NOT the Military Government, ordered the surrender. So even more strange for the US to insist he loses power and enforce a system of gov they did not want, as he was the one who had the sense to stop things.

So even more strange for the US to insist he loses power and enforce a system of gov they did not want, as he was the one who had the sense to stop things.

The Emperor ordered the Unconditional Surrender. The Military government tried a coup that failed. The coup signified that they wanted to continue to fight. The Emperor knew that he could and probably would lose his power but did it anyway because he didn't want his people to suffer more than they already did.

I actually think the Japanese were punished way to hard for the war. While I have no sympathy for their war criminals, or that biological weapons unit (the US was happy to collect all the research done there...).
I reckon most of the damage that was done to Japan was only because America felt "violated" by Pearl Harbour, as if it was somehow illegitimate. The two countries had been de facto at war already, the US had chosen its' side, and Japan needed to act fast or risk starving from lack of oil. And much of the war propaganda from the US of that time is so blatantly racist, it's really no better than the Nazi's culture war against bolshevist masses.

And now Japanese culture is dying out, replaced by disillusioned kiddies killing themselves.

Oh, and why was unconditional surrender justified? And why did the Emperor have to give up his status?
Couldn't one think that was just a matter of destroying their national pride and dignity.

I actually think the Japanese were punished way to hard for the war. While I have no sympathy for their war criminals, or that biological weapons unit (the US was happy to collect all the research done there...).

I have no sympathy for their War Criminals either.

I reckon most of the damage that was done to Japan was only because America felt "violated" by Pearl Harbour, as if it was somehow illegitimate.

Which it technically was and it wasn't at the sametime. It was illegitimate because there was no prior declaration of war. It was handed to Secretary of State Hull AFTER Pearl was attacked.

The two countries had been de facto at war already, the US had chosen its' side, and Japan needed to act fast or risk starving from lack of oil. And much of the war propaganda from the US of that time is so blatantly racist, it's really no better than the Nazi's culture war against bolshevist masses.

At least we didn't exterminate the Japanese. Yea we interned them but we later appologized and repaid them for the wrong.

And now Japanese culture is dying out, replaced by disillusioned kiddies killing themselves.

Their culture is conducive to that. It is so stress filled and that if you don't do well, you won't succeed. That brings disgrace to the family and thus suicide.

Oh, and why was unconditional surrender justified? And why did the Emperor have to give up his status?

Justified because you want to make sure you don't give your enemy a way out. As for the Emperor to give up his status, you lose you pay. The Emperor really didn't lose his power. He remained emperor but was under General MacArthur for awhile till we declared the Occupation of Japan over.

Couldn't one think that was just a matter of destroying their national pride and dignity.

It was their pride and dignity that kept them fighting till Emperor Hirohito issued the orders to surrender.

Which it technically was and it wasn't at the sametime. It was illegitimate because there was no prior declaration of war. It was handed to Secretary of State Hull AFTER Pearl was attacked.
Two hours was it? The attack would still have been going. But yes, they should have had their telephones working better (although they were full of US Bugs).


Their culture is conducive to that. It is so stress filled and that if you don't do well, you won't succeed. That brings disgrace to the family and thus suicide.
But that is today. Before the war, it wasn't quite such a cut-throat system...lol, I'm defending Samurai Japan against allegation of suicide...


Justified because you want to make sure you don't give your enemy a way out. As for the Emperor to give up his status, you lose you pay. The Emperor really didn't lose his power. He remained emperor but was under General MacArthur for awhile till we declared the Occupation of Japan over.
A way out? Like what?
The Emperor lost his status as a deity. That's as good as losing your power. Having the son of heaven under some farm boy from Arkansas (are there farms in Arkansas?) is just the icing on the cake.

It was their pride and dignity that kept them fighting till Emperor Hirohito issued the orders to surrender.
How dare them fight for their country!
Is that enough reason to destroy a nation like that, first physically and then emotionally and culturally?

I actually think the Japanese were punished way to hard for the war.
For the most part, Japan actually emerged from the war in many ways without having to be punished. The US, looking for shore up Asia, quickly turned Japan back into a productive state. Whereas Germany was divided, Japan lost nothing of its orginal territory. While the Tokyo Tribunal can be debated on legitamacy, you have to understand that in the end, it was decided by the Allies, including China, to pin the blaim on the class A war criminals instead of Japan at large, again to check Soviet power in the region.

Punished too hard? Don't really think so.

And now Japanese culture is dying out, replaced by disillusioned kiddies killing themselves.
Uh... ok... my town begs to disagree.

Oh, and why was unconditional surrender justified? And why did the Emperor have to give up his status?
Because that was the same given to the other Axis Powers, unconditional surrender. The Showa Emperor lost his godhead due to it being used by state Shinto as an excuse to whip up nationalistic pride in the Japanese public. Like dismantling Nazism, the idea was to defang the wolf so this wouldn't happen again. In any case, the notion of the Emperor as divinity came about after the Meji Restoration, historically it was never like that.

Couldn't one think that was just a matter of destroying their national pride and dignity.
If that's what we were going for, we failed. They still have their national pride and dignity.

Perhapse the museum has, but the memorials and activist still seem to have those different approaches when I see and hear them on the TV.

As far as many Japanese knowing about the why's of the bomb, I've found the war generation to be more likely to understand it and the younger generations not to.

(And BTW, since you mentioned Yasukuni, have you been following the DY's series on it? Good reading.)
Which memorials? The ones I saw were mainly consentrating on the tragedy. Oh well, I think it effects various Americans in different ways. One of my American friends thinks the same way you do whereas I viewed it as more balanced so I think it's what you go in with.

Of course my Japanese fiancee's mother said she felt a huge amount of guilt and as if she was being blaimed when she visited the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor so...

Fraid I haven't been. I'm so inaka that it's hard to get anything out here that isn't online. Which is why I'm hanging out in this forum. ;)

Two hours was it? The attack would still have been going. But yes, they should have had their telephones working better (although they were full of US Bugs).

Actually, we were reading their memos but I'm sure that we had their phones bugged too. I'm sure the attack was still going on however, the Declaration of War came AFTER the attack began. That is enough to piss anyone off.

But that is today. Before the war, it wasn't quite such a cut-throat system...lol, I'm defending Samurai Japan against allegation of suicide...

Yes you are! LOL

A way out? Like what?
The Emperor lost his status as a deity. That's as good as losing your power. Having the son of heaven under some farm boy from Arkansas (are there farms in Arkansas?) is just the icing on the cake.

yes there are farms in Arkansas. That was the only thing he lost. Remember that Japan was fighting in the name of the Emperor their God. I guess he wasn't that powerful because Japan still lost the war.

How dare them fight for their country!
Is that enough reason to destroy a nation like that, first physically and then emotionally and culturally?

They lost.

-snip-
Well, I can't argue with you, I've never been and I can't say I know as much about Japan than you do.
And yet, Germany was punished to such an extent for the actions of a select few fanatics. No political reasons, just revenge.
And my point is that what happened to Japan after the war is exactly the same.

Well, I can't argue with you, I've never been and I can't say I know as much about Japan than you do.
And yet, Germany was punished to such an extent for the actions of a select few fanatics. No political reasons, just revenge.
And my point is that what happened to Japan after the war is exactly the same.
Eh... I think it's debateable, and will be so for quite a while. As I said, if you look at it, Japan got of lightly compaired to Germany, and comparied to how Germany was treated after World War I, Germany itself got off lightly.

Japan did gain a lot from the American occupation (and did lose a lot as well, not saying that it was all sweetness and roses). But it also did something very Japanese, it waited till the Americans were gone and changed things the Americans had implimented that it didn't like, ignored those things it couldn't change, and proceeded to implant a Japanese heart into things it DID like to make it Japanese.

They've done things like this repeatedly throughout their history, this is no different.

That's why I say Japanese culture is not dying out, if anything, it's spreading.

...I guess he wasn't that powerful because Japan still lost the war...They lost.
Do I sense just the slightest sense of gratification on your part here?
Like you might just still be keeping a grudge somewhere deep inside you.

...That's why I say Japanese culture is not dying out, if anything, it's spreading.
And yet there are quite fundamental societal problems to be addressed now with the economy having been in such trouble.
And I hate to sound like your grandfather (presumably) but the few things I see here of Japanese youth culture seem mighty extreme, and not very traditionally Japanese to me.

Second, your professor is not that intelligent. He does not understand the bushido culture that was present in Japan. He also does not really understand how seriously ingrained that belief was nor the fact that it calls for never surrendering. The Japanese were damned determined to continue fighting the war. Its idiots like you and your professor however that refuse to acknowledge the obvious that creates a backlash by the general populace that STILL knows more than you unfortunately despite your belief that you are well informed.

The truth is, you are not. You and him have a set bias and ignore all the crap the people had do deal with on the American side with the Japanese. You only see two bombs and think of evil instead of all the evil that lead up to those two events.Americai: Official Warning - Flamebait.

I never said it was evil. It's idiots like you who put words in my mouth. Also, excuse me while I declare you an idiot and turn this into a flaming board as opposed to a civilized discussion. If I can be proved wrong I can be proven wrong. Funny enough, every libel you throw at me is probably true about yourself. None of the things I'm saying about you are necessarily true, I'm just saying them to be offensive.
"[You and] [H]im have set bias." Oooh, good grammar there, jerk(note the sarcasm). I'm quoting information and you come in and attack me and say it's all wrong. Give me some sources. How about some intelligent discussion, you green-faced troll.

Ah, yes. Clearly, since "it came out on the history channel," it is fact! "The History Channel" is not the end-all-be-all. It shoves History into Two Hour(at the most) slots with commercials in it. Not a good place to discuss history.

Just as you cannot necessarily compare the leaders of the country to it's citizens, so you cannot necessarily compare the citizens of the country to it's leaders-Who says the Supreme War Direction Council(I believe, I may have switched up some wording) was Bushido? Also, Bushido culture is about saving face-Is there any consideration that such a note was just an attempt to save face? Give me some good arguements besides "IT WAS ON TEH HISTORY CHANNEL!!!11!!!1!!1!1!!" and "You and him r teh idiot!1!!11!1!"

Oh, yeah. I'm done attacking you now, jerkwad.Tierra De Cristo: Official Warning - Flaming and Flamebait.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Do I sense just the slightest sense of gratification on your part here?
Like you might just still be keeping a grudge somewhere deep inside you.

Oh I have no resentment. My parents both lived in Japan (Both parents USAF stationed in Okinawa) and taught me some of the Japanese Culture. They don't surrender and they don't retreat.

Once you lose a war, you lost all power to dictate terms. That is why if you start a war, make sure you finish it. The Japs started it, the US ended it. The Germans started it and the Allies finished it.

Could be. Nobody will ever know for sure, though.

It still pisses me off, now even moreso after reading this.
Feel better. The Japanese Emporer Hirohito was a biology major and specifically authorized the creation and activities of Unit 731, probably the most ghastly example of mans inhumanity to man in all of human history. He should have been excecuted as a war criminal for his actions. In either case allowing him to retain the power he had during WWII was pretty unacceptable.

My grandfather fought in the Red Army in WW2 and led the 99th Heavy Assault Artillery Brigade (3rd Guards Artillery Division, I think) in the Manchurian campaign at the close of the war, after his CO got lost in the desert.

They wiped out a million-strong Japanese army in two weeks for 8,500 fatalities. Apparently, the Japanese are good soldiers in dense jungle on small rocky islands, but in open country up against mechanised units, it was like target practice. Especially given Russia's ability to refuel entire tank divisions by parachute drops.

Was it necessary to drop the bombs? The simple answer to that is, when the bombs were dropped, there was no Japanese army left in Japan to defend it. But the above scared the Americans shitless.

No argeument from me on that.

Ditto. Before the bombs we only guessed what would happen......

My grandfather fought in the Red Army in WW2 and led the 99th Heavy Assault Artillery Brigade (3rd Guards Artillery Division, I think) in the Manchurian campaign at the close of the war, after his CO got lost in the desert.

They wiped out a million-strong Japanese army in two weeks for 8,500 fatalities. Apparently, the Japanese are good soldiers in dense jungle on small rocky islands, but in open country up against mechanised units, it was like target practice. Especially given Russia's ability to refuel entire tank divisions by parachute drops.

Was it necessary to drop the bombs? The simple answer to that is, when the bombs were dropped, there was no Japanese army left in Japan to defend it. But the above scared the Americans shitless.

Yea by the end of the war the army was just a ragtag version of itself. They didn't have any heavy tanks so of course the soviet armor would be unstoppable.

Now if they attacked in the beginning? How you going to supply those tanks with all the zeros in the air?

How are you going to get by the Navy?....

Ahh what ifs.....

My dad, who is a pacifist, always said this:

"They could've just told the Japanese that they have the bomb, then choose some unihabited island, tell the Japanese they're gonna drop it there, and then they can watch."

So getting them to surrender by demonstrating power can hardly have been the entire reason.

Well your dad didn't know about one thing.

When Hiroshima was hit; they didn't belive it. They just thought it was another fire raid.

Even with your example; why would the command belive the americans? They were the enemy....

Well your dad didn't know about one thing.

When Hiroshima was hit; they didn't belive it. They just thought it was another fire raid.

Even with your example; why would the command belive the americans? They were the enemy....
a) Back off my father, buddy. Attack me if you wish, but let the old man alone.

b) All communications were instantly cut. Why should they have believed it was somehow a new super weapon rather than the stuff they dealt with all the time?

c) The idea would be to get a few Japanese observers to see the bomb for themselves. Then they could go back to the Emperor and tell him about it.

b) All communications were instantly cut. Why should they have believed it was somehow a new super weapon rather than the stuff they dealt with all the time?

Because no one has ever used the type of bomb that we used on Hiroshima. It wasn't till later that they realized it was a different type of bomb but they still didn't surrender. It wasn't until Nagasaki went up did they realize that they were literally beaten and even then, the military Junta wanted to continue to fight. They tried a coup and failed when the Emperor issued the surrender edict. The people involved in the coup thought that the Emperor was under an influence and that he had to be removed. It didn't work thank God.

c) The idea would be to get a few Japanese observers to see the bomb for themselves. Then they could go back to the Emperor and tell him about it.

Someone doesn't understand Japanese Culture.

-snip-
As far as I know, the Emperor was pretty much the only person in Japan who was ready to give up his status.

a) Prince Takamatsu was the boss of a group of Physicists who were quite influential with the leaders and who said a nuclear weapon was impossible to realise for as long as the war went on.

b) Admiral Yonai said the war was lost, there was no point in fighting on. Togo and Hiranuma agreed.
General Anami couldn't decide and was still playing with the possibility of defeating a US invasion. He said though that he was ready to make peace if they could keep the monarchy, that the Americans didn't occupy Japan and allowed Japanese judges to trial war criminals. Umazu and Toyada agreed with Anami. Those conditions would of course mean that the war would go on.
It was a stand-off, and for the first time in decades the Emperor actually intervened (somewhere around midnight the 9th of August I believe). Suzuki then stood up (he hadn't really said anything so far) and asked the Emperor to make a clear decision: One way or the other? He threw himself on the ground when he asked it.
The Emperor answered that he was disappointed with his high militaries, who had promised him victories and delivered nothing. He said he didn't care about what happened to him, he just wanted the suffering of his people to end.
And so he wanted to. But when the Americans answered that he'd have to be subordinate of a US Military government, Hiranuma sided with the fighters, Anami wrote a letter to the army calling on them to keep fighting, some units started getting very restless and Suzuki, Togo and Yonai were in real danger of being lynched.
So on the 14th the leadership met again, but the argument hadn't moved on and was still in stalemate. And so Hirohito said again that he would end the war at all cost and recorded a message to the people.
So on the 15th a bunch of officers (not really high ones), mainly a certain Hatamaka, captured Radio Tokyo, and tried to destroy the vinyl with the recording on it.
Anami committed Harakiri for having to disagree with the Emperor.
A General Tanaka calmed down the troups, although he wanted to fight on, and therefore committed suicide as well.
And then the message was played afterall.
Mass suicides followed, in Atsugi the pilots were in open rebellion and wanted the fight gyakusai.
Suzuki resigned, Hirohito installed his Uncle as Prime Minister and sent other family members to bring the message to the armies overseas.

But the majority of people did prefer to live rather than to die. The unrest disappeared and on the 2nd of September the peace was signed.

c) I do know a bit about Japanese culture. It's always fascinated me, and so I read a lot about it, Samurai novels, those memoires and anecdotes written by that Samurai turned monk and so on.
And yet the Emperor wasn't ready to let his entire people get slaughtered. If they had given him (and the military) a demonstration like that, it would've worked just as well as dropping it on cities.

And yet the Emperor wasn't ready to let his entire people get slaughtered. If they had given him (and the military) a demonstration like that, it would've worked just as well as dropping it on cities.
I'm afraid that I don't have my reference books with me right now so I'll fact check later.

But I would remind you of the following points.

The US only had three working (we thought) atomic weapons. One was the Trinity bomb that had already been detonated, the other two were Little Boy and Fat Man. If the demonstation had not worked, the US would not be able to preform a strike and then back it up with another one (as it was, Truman bluffed).

The US also really had no idea of the power of the bomb and what it was capable of. Trinity was exploded in a desert, the idea of radiation, the a-bomb sickness, black rain, and the firestorm generated by the blast took everyone by surprise (Little Boy was more powerful than the Trinity blast, and with Trinity, they weren't sure if it would ignite the atmosphere or not). A demonstration would be an iffy thing as on a island you'd see fused glass and fire, not the dstruction of the city.

Finally though, you're at war with someone and have been for a number of years. There are massive amounts of casulties on both sides of the conflict throughout these years. Your people have been bombed, your cities destroyed, and you are well aware that the other side would like to see you dead if possible.

Would you really trust then a nice invitation from your enemy to a deserted island to see a new weapon of theirs, or would you be inclined to think the test would be on YOU?

Would you really trust then a nice invitation from your enemy to a deserted island to see a new weapon of theirs, or would you be inclined to think the test would be on YOU?

Well knowing about the Japanese military, they could've easily got a bunch of people go there, no matter whether they were blown up or not. Call it a kamikaze diplomatic mission...
And they could've taped it on camera and shown to their bosses too. I don't see why they shouldn't have listened to it.

I got my facts from "Der Zweite Weltkrieg" by Raymond Cartier, who is a very good and skilled researcher and WWII Historian (I think he's dead now though).
And according to this info I posted above, the Nuke was just one of many factors, including the USSR is Manchuria, the huge bombing raids and so on. They just thought they couldn't win it anymore.

Well knowing about the Japanese military, they could've easily got a bunch of people go there, no matter whether they were blown up or not. Call it a kamikaze diplomatic mission...
And they could've taped it on camera and shown to their bosses too. I don't see why they shouldn't have listened to it.

I got my facts from "Der Zweite Weltkrieg" by Raymond Cartier, who is a very good and skilled researcher and WWII Historian (I think he's dead now though).
And according to this info I posted above, the Nuke was just one of many factors, including the USSR is Manchuria, the huge bombing raids and so on. They just thought they couldn't win it anymore.
Why waste the troops when you could use them to take out Americans in a kamikaze attack? No, betwen the Japanese and Americans, the demonstration would not have worked. If either side were willing to fully bend, they would have done so by that point in time.

And I agree, the bombs were not the sole reason for Japan's surrender, but I do think they were either a catalist or provided a good excuse to act as a catalist.

But until (and quite honestly IF) the Imperial Household Agency releases the Showa Emperor's records and papers from under seal, we will problably never know what drove him to act and override his goverment. But there is no release laws in Japan, and the records of the Imperial Household Agency sometimes act outside the Japanese goverment's control so we will be waiting a long time.

According to Eisenhower, McArthur and even Spaatz, there was no military necessity. And if someone would know that, then it's them.

Also, consider Operation Sunrise in Europe (the talks between the SD of the SS and the American OSS with the help of the Swiss army over a German surrender in northern Italy and Austria, which were a complete violation of the pact with Stalin), and Churchill's order to remove Tito's Yugoslav's from Austria if necessary by force, and any other tensions between the Soviets and the western allies when the war in Europe wasn't even over yet.

Then count the fact that Japan at the time of August was virtually annihilated. The industry didn't exist anymore, the infrastructure was basically gone, the fleet was destroyed and the few outdated fighterplanes couldn't do much against the highflying B-29s.

Then count the extremely short time between both nukes (3 days), and the Soviet promise to enter the war in the east (which would lead to a larger Soviet influence sphere).

Also, consider the fact that the removal of the Emperor was part of the unconditional surrender (and thus all prior attempts of a Japanese surrender had been ignored) before the nukes were dropped. After it? He was allowed to stay and Japan surrendered. Interesting sudden change of mind by the western allies.

Conclusion:

A hint to the Soviet Bear, nothing else, to keep them at bay and away from more land. A display of power by the Americans to the Soviets "Better not try anything stupid, or else". A situation that backfired, soon everyone had the bomb and even today every shitty little dictator wants it.

The western allies could have changed the term concerning the Emperor before dropping these weapons. Why didn't they do it? Because they wanted to test those things and show off.

On a different note, bushido and the samurai have nothing to do with the Japanese military of that time. The military leadership merely took what they saw fit from bushido and abused it. Many important parts were merely left out and ignored. I still say, if they would have followed bushido full scale and 100%, Nanking and other atrocities would have never happened.

The argument of American casualities is ridiculous. Those were soldiers, period. Their bloody duty is to fight, to kill, and if necessary, to die, face it. The Japanese hit by both bombs were mainly civilians. Anyone who kills civilians is a warcriminal. Period. But well, the people hit were only "Japs" anyway (same attitude that appeared later in Korea and Vietnam, who doesn't remember the "gooks" and "slopes").

Swallow it down Americans, it was a warcrime, massmurder, and not a great victory.

The argument of American casualities is ridiculous. Those were soldiers, period. Their bloody duty is to fight, to kill, and if necessary, to die, face it. The Japanese hit by both bombs were mainly civilians. Anyone who kills civilians is a warcriminal. Period. But well, the people hit were only "Japs" anyway (same attitude that appeared later in Korea and Vietnam, who doesn't remember the "gooks" and "slopes").

Swallow it down Americans, it was a warcrime, massmurder, and not a great victory.

Why shouldn't you want to preserve the lives of your men, even if that benefit comes at the cost of more enemy casualties? In total war, the lives of the enemy must be counted for less than the lives of your own soldiers.

Everyone killed civilians during WWII (and, for that matter, civvies have died during every war in history). Should we be putting every nation on earth on trial for war crimes?

The traditional argument is that it saved lives-It was needed because the Japanese had shown they would fight to the death, so we had to force a surrender. You can see the argument played out here- http://allfreeessays.com/student/Atomic_Bomb_Necessary.html

(forgive the...seediness, of that site, compared to the good funding of my other sources, but, I don't see many people running around yelling 'Let's have more nukes,' except for a few notable countries)

Allow me to take up the challenge :D

I found a fairly well-known (in the circles of political commentry, that is) writer who takes just that position. His article is at http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/NukesNukesNukes.htm

a) Back off my father, buddy. Attack me if you wish, but let the old man alone.

b) All communications were instantly cut. Why should they have believed it was somehow a new super weapon rather than the stuff they dealt with all the time?

c) The idea would be to get a few Japanese observers to see the bomb for themselves. Then they could go back to the Emperor and tell him about it.

a) a tad sensitive are we? You are reading something into nothing.

b-c) Well hindsight and what if are nice to debate. But that is all they are. Japan probably would not have taken up the offer.

The western allies could have changed the term concerning the Emperor before dropping these weapons. Why didn't they do it? Because they wanted to test those things and show off.
[/quote[

Why? WW1 showed what happen when you allow for conditional surrender.

[quote]The argument of American casualities is ridiculous. Those were soldiers, period. Their bloody duty is to fight, to kill, and if necessary, to die, face it. The Japanese hit by both bombs were mainly civilians. Anyone who kills civilians is a warcriminal. Period. But well, the people hit were only "Japs" anyway (same attitude that appeared later in Korea and Vietnam, who doesn't remember the "gooks" and "slopes").


Never served did you? Such statesments of what a soldier is supposed to do is usually an indicator.

Civilian death = warcriminal? Ok everybody who has ever fought in a war is a war criminal(well at least anybody in command). Guess what civilians have always died in war.

Japs, gooks, slopes? Yup it's called dehumanizing the enemy. Makes them easier to kill.

Hmmmm What was the WWI poster of a German soldier bashing in a childs brain against a wall? Making the Hun a monster makes them easier to kill.

Sorry slick everybody did it.


Swallow it down Americans, it was a warcrime, massmurder, and not a great victory.

That's only your opinion. The fire raids of Tokyo killed many more civilians then the two bombs.

Swallow it down Americans, it was a warcrime, massmurder, and not a great victory.
You keep bringing up the same points, and the same points are answered again and again, which usually leads you to talking about the corruption of the Japanese spirit. Do you have anything new now or are we going to dance to the same tune again?

Any case, one thing you should note, the Emporer steping down was NOT a condition of surrender, unconditional meant just that, NO CONDITIONS! The decidion to retain the imperial system was made by SCAP later on once the occupation had started. The idea was to use the Emperor as a control on the general population and as a symbol of coroperation with the occupation, but this didn't come about without a fight. Indeed, this point was fought up to the very end in Washington with many wanting the Showa Emperor put on trial as well. But, others prevailed with the backing of SCAP in maintaining a servearly curtailed imperial system. It's why the current Japanese constitution is written the way it is in regards to the Emperor, to defang that particular beast.

It's also why the Showa Emperor embarked on a grand tour of Japan, so that the Japanese people could see him working with SCAP and be infulanced in that regard, as well as remove the last bits of his godhead within the people's minds.

Anything else you plan to add?

Why shouldn't you want to preserve the lives of your men, even if that benefit comes at the cost of more enemy casualties? In total war, the lives of the enemy must be counted for less than the lives of your own soldiers.
A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. -- George S. Patton

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. -- George S. Patton

Superior firepower is an invaluable tool when entering negotiations. -- George S. Patton

May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. -- George S. Patton

In war there is no second prize for the runner-up. -- Omar Bradley

War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over. -- William Tecumseh Sherman

The people who fought and died to preserve the freedoms so that I might one day enjoy their fruits, there are no people more precious to me. They afforded me not just life and liberty to follow my compass, but the wealth with which to pursue it. They stamped my hand for a very exclusive club. Everyone who's anyone is either in the Freedom party or literally dying to get in. Anyone who doesn't value the lives of those who secured that freedom, can't value their own freedom. The two are inextricably linked.

McArthur was a deeply flawed example of a human being. He cared only to be remembered fondly by the history books, not for the lives of his men. Proof of this is his reckless policy in Korea, which included, among other things, advocating the detonating a string of atomic weapons across the Ya Lu river to create a radiologically contaminated DMZ.

-snip-
That's great, but none of these quotes come from anyone who got it. There's few Americans who ever actually experienced war.
Sure, there were many soldiers, but fighting as a soldier, as horrible as it may be, is not the face of war.
The civilians are the only ones who see war in its' entirety. And there's been decidedly few US civilians who have had such an experience.
Oh, and Patton was a reckless cowboy and Bradley a moron. I don't know about Sherman.

Well hindsight and what if are nice to debate. But that is all they are.

They are however the topic of this thread.


Why? WW1 showed what happen when you allow for conditional surrender.
Who got to surrender on conditions in WW1?


Never served did you? Such statesments of what a soldier is supposed to do is usually an indicator.
I guess we've got nothing on you then. You seem to be a specialist in killing civilians. Afterall, civilians have always died in war, one more doesn't make the difference, hey?


Japs, gooks, slopes? Yup it's called dehumanizing the enemy. Makes them easier to kill.
That coming from the liberators, the fighters for democracy and freedom in the world.
Seems like you may not have gotten over dehumanising the Japanese population just yet.


That's only your opinion. The fire raids of Tokyo killed many more civilians then the two bombs.
One more reason not to drop them, if you could do the greater carnage already.
No, as offensive his argument may be, the US had invested much time and money into building the bombs, and now they wanted to use them. Japan wasn't even the primary goal, Germany was meant to get them.
One could say you dropped them just for the hell of it.

That's great, but none of these quotes come from anyone who got it. There's few Americans who ever actually experienced war.
Sure, there were many soldiers, but fighting as a soldier, as horrible as it may be, is not the face of war.
The civilians are the only ones who see war in its' entirety. And there's been decidedly few US civilians who have had such an experience.
Oh, and Patton was a reckless cowboy and Bradley a moron. I don't know about Sherman.
So you want a bunch of quotes about appeasement? Please. The Japanese wanted to go all in. They lost. It's just that simple.

Patton was audacious, but not reckless. His concern was always for the lives of his men.

For as hated as Sherman is, even now, for the humiliation he inflicted upon the south in the American civil war, he saved lives. Much in the same way Patton would accomplish. You want to know what kills people, especially civilians? Trying to fight wars to stalemate such as was done in Vietnam. Holding back. Because Allies were ruthless in war and generous in peace is why we're prosperous today and didn't have to fight WWIII.

So even more strange for the US to insist he loses power and enforce a system of gov they did not want, as he was the one who had the sense to stop things.

It's not strange at all. Assuring his continued place in government after the war would have been tantamount to a negotiated peace which was not on the table. Surrender was to be without conditions. As it happens he was allowed to remain as a figurehead instead of being tried as a war criminal (which had been suggested by some in both the UK and US).

And you can't lay the blame for the peace terms solely on the US doorstep. It was a UK/US war and a US/UK peace. There were no seperate peace terms.

'The Bombs'
Somebody set up us the! :eek:

I seriously doubt that the reason the bombs where dropped was to scare the Russians. The U.S. still had to end the war with Japan and rebuild Germany, and I don't believe that we were looking to scare the Soviets at the time. Anyhow, I believe that the alternative to the bombings(an invasion of mainland Japan) could have proved more costly to the United States and Japan. I mean, Japanese prapoganda was telling their citizens that when the United States invaded, that we would kill, rape and even canibalize their people. It saved American lives, plain and simple.

I do believe that it was a shame that Japanese citizens died but assuming we had invaded, American soldiers, Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians would have died. Not to mention that it arguably ended the war quicker. Also, have you ever thought about the citizens killed by the Japanese in the Pacific? May I also bring it to everyone's attention that near the end of the war, Germany was sending materials to Japan necessary for building an atomic bomb. They might have done the same thing to us.

1. The Japanese wanted to go all in. They lost. It's just that simple.
2. Because Allies were ruthless in war and generous in peace is why we're prosperous today and didn't have to fight WWIII.
1. You are seeing black and white. There were many voices in the Japanese military who didn't want a war with the US. Even the Emperor wasn't sure, but he kept quite because he wasn't a military expert. The guy who led the attack on Pearl Harbour didn't think it was a great idea.
America had chosen sides long before. Japan had two choices: capitulating, giving up China and its' expansionist policy or trying to crush America before as long as they still could.
As you would know, the first could never be a meaningful alternative for the Japanese, and it wouldn't be one for today's America either.
It's never "just that simple". It's attitudes like yours that make America such an unpopular player on the world stage.

2. Do you actually believe that? I cannot possibly hope to save you from 60 years of simplistic propaganda, and I just hope that as you grow older, and you may learn about other places in the world, you will see past your convictions.

1. May I also bring it to everyone's attention that near the end of the war, Germany was sending materials to Japan necessary for building an atomic bomb.
2. They might have done the same thing to us.
1. Well, if you look at my post above, the Japanese military did not believe an atomic bomb was feasible for any time soon.
2. How? They couldn't reach the US. They weren't a threat to you.

And I would also like to see a quick link about this whole Krauts give Japs nukes claim, cuz I'd never thought of that before.
As far as I know, Germany pretty much gave up its' nuclear program in favour of jet engines and V2s.

1. You are seeing black and white. There were many voices in the Japanese military who didn't want a war with the US. Even the Emperor wasn't sure, but he kept quite because he wasn't a military expert. The guy who led the attack on Pearl Harbour didn't think it was a great idea.
America had chosen sides long before. Japan had two choices: capitulating, giving up China and its' expansionist policy or trying to crush America before as long as they still could.
As you would know, the first could never be a meaningful alternative for the Japanese, and it wouldn't be one for today's America either.
It's never "just that simple". It's attitudes like yours that make America such an unpopular player on the world stage.

2. Do you actually believe that? I cannot possibly hope to save you from 60 years of simplistic propaganda, and I just hope that as you grow older, and you may learn about other places in the world, you will see past your convictions.
You're right. The Emporer was a biology expert who's order explicitly provided for the formation of Unit 731. The Japanese military experts, who weren't educated in the US, and like Hitler, were perfectly willing to endure ten or more atomic weapons, prefering that the Japanese empire (and people) be destroyed, gloriously. The political powers, such as they existed, prefered to trust in archaic footware analogies in an effort to save face at the expense of precious time. It's not black and white. But it is extremely simple. They wanted to preserve appearences more than they cared about peace for the Japanese people. I find it highly ironic, and appropriate, that it actually was the Emporer who actually cared enough about the real people of Japan to end the charade.

And believe it? Hell yes. I've got thousands of years of recorded history on my side.How many countries would be in North America if it wasn't for William Tecumseh Sherman. The only noble goal to be found in war isn't to kill enemy soldiers, it's to kill the will to fight in a people. Where that's understood, when there is will to follow through, the seeds of peace are sown. That elemental understanding, is what made MAD work and kept us safe.

Who got to surrender on conditions in WW1?

Wow. Ever read something after the fact and think what the hell was I thinking?

Comment withdrawn.


I guess we've got nothing on you then. You seem to be a specialist in killing civilians.

:rolleyes: Ok whatever.


Afterall, civilians have always died in war, one more doesn't make the difference, hey?

:rolleyes: Ok whatever.


That coming from the liberators, the fighters for democracy and freedom in the world.

:rolleyes: Ok whatever.


Seems like you may not have gotten over dehumanising the Japanese population just yet.

:rolleyes: Ok whatever.


One more reason not to drop them, if you could do the greater carnage already.
No, as offensive his argument may be, the US had invested much time and money into building the bombs, and now they wanted to use them. Japan wasn't even the primary goal, Germany was meant to get them.
One could say you dropped them just for the hell of it.
:rolleyes: Ok whatever.

Who got to surrender on conditions in WW1?


There was a conditional armistice on Nov. 11 1918. Which lead to a negotiated peace settlement at Versailles on June 28, 1919. The very fact that the Germans were at the table indicates that surrender was not unconditional. Nor was the armistice.

Moreover, Germany was free to choose its own form of government &c. after WWI, without allied interference or veto power. (Though there were arms limits and territorial adjustments).

In any case, it was not an unconditional surrender as in WWII.

1. You are seeing black and white. There were many voices in the Japanese military who didn't want a war with the US. Even the Emperor wasn't sure, but he kept quite because he wasn't a military expert. The guy who led the attack on Pearl Harbour didn't think it was a great idea.
America had chosen sides long before. Japan had two choices: capitulating, giving up China and its' expansionist policy or trying to crush America before as long as they still could.
As you would know, the first could never be a meaningful alternative for the Japanese, and it wouldn't be one for today's America either.
It's never "just that simple". It's attitudes like yours that make America such an unpopular player on the world stage.
The split in the Japanese goverment at the time is far more complex than you have stated here, as for the Showa Emperor's feelings... historians are still debating that, and will always be. I have seen sources that seem to go both ways. The picture that comes out is of a man who was caught up in the events of the time and while he was swept into war by the Imperial Army (The Imperial Navy was against), he also knew it was coming and did nothing to check the power of the Army, or rebuke the Army after it started the war. Once war was started with the US, he also was for the war. It is a very complex picture.

As for nukes, I too have never heard that Japan was receiving materials from Nazi Germany, but recent discoveries seem to indicate that Germany was far closer to devloping the bomb than previously belived.

1. You're right. The Emporer was a biology expert who's order explicitly provided for the formation of Unit 731.
2. The Japanese military experts, who weren't educated in the US, and like Hitler, were perfectly willing to endure ten or more atomic weapons, prefering that the Japanese empire (and people) be destroyed, gloriously.
3. The only noble goal to be found in war isn't to kill enemy soldiers, it's to kill the will to fight in a people.
1. Your point being? He was a marine biologist, maybe that's more appropriate as somehow implying he killed people with germs. Ishii did that.

2. Will you please read my post #67. "The japanese miltary experts" were not quite as headless evildoers as you may want them to be.

3. There is no noble goal in war. None. I'm saddened that you still think that way, that somehow you refuse to accept this.
Will it really take WW3 for you to realise?

1. Well, if you look at my post above, the Japanese military did not believe an atomic bomb was feasible for any time soon.

It is still fairly unclear how advanced the various Japanese projects were. There is even some question as to how many there were. There were Riken and F-Go for sure. Riken was moved from Tokyo to Konan/Hungnam Korea and *may* have even tested a small atomic bomb. There may have been research in Manchuko as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program#Development
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

2. How? They couldn't reach the US. They weren't a threat to you.

There were lot's of juicy targets outside the CONUS. An atomic bomb delivered by a "special attack unit" at a major logistics base like Saipan or to a naval fleet would be good examples.

And I would also like to see a quick link about this whole Krauts give Japs nukes claim, cuz I'd never thought of that before.
As far as I know, Germany pretty much gave up its' nuclear program in favour of jet engines and V2s.

The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/nuke-ww2.htm

More on U-234 and it's cargo, and the Japanese nuclear program in general: http://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/u234.htm
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/jp-abomb.htm

That second one had in interesting tidbit:

An unidentified man from West Australia, writing in a guest book at the science museum at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, had this to say:

"My mother, sister and I were in a POW camp in Java (Djakarta) when the first bomb went off. As a reprisal, the Japanese were going to place all the camp residents in barges and sink them in the Java Sea. The second bomb saved our lives -- and all those innocent women and children held in POW camps all over Java and Sumatra and no doubt elsewhere.

It is notable that the use of "Fat Man" saved more than just the lives of those who would have perished is

The split in the Japanese goverment at the time is far more complex than you have stated here, as for the Showa Emperor's feelings... historians are still debating that, and will always be. I have seen sources that seem to go both ways. The picture that comes out is of a man who was caught up in the events of the time and while he was swept into war by the Imperial Army (The Imperial Navy was against), he also knew it was coming and did nothing to check the power of the Army, or rebuke the Army after it started the war. Once war was started with the US, he also was for the war. It is a very complex picture.

As for nukes, I too have never heard that Japan was receiving materials from Nazi Germany, but recent discoveries seem to indicate that Germany was far closer to devloping the bomb than previously belived.

As far as the government goes, exactly right.

I'm really surprised that so many people are unaware of U-234. It's been quite well documented in books, and movies as well.

-snip-
Fair enough, although some of that sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me.
And yet, according to my sources (again, the info is to be found in post #67) the leading Japanese people were advised that a nuclear weapon was not really feasible any time soon.

As far as the government goes, exactly right.

I'm really surprised that so many people are unaware of U-234. It's been quite well documented in books, and movies as well.
Well, I knew both countries were devloping the bomb, but most of the histories I have read have focused more on Germany (of course for a great many WWII books, the Pacific war kinda gets shoved into the background) than Japan.

Learn something new everyday, ne?

There was a conditional armistice on Nov. 11 1918. Which lead to a negotiated peace settlement at Versailles on June 28, 1919. The very fact that the Germans were at the table indicates that surrender was not unconditional. Nor was the armistice.

Moreover, Germany was free to choose its own form of government &c. after WWI, without allied interference or veto power. (Though there were arms limits and territorial adjustments).

In any case, it was not an unconditional surrender as in WWII.
Well, really all the German negotiators were allowed to do was listen to the demands and accept them. I wouldn't think that a fair negotiation would've produced something as unfair, one-sided and eventually fatal as Versailles.
The German government had also offered peace previously, one time even including giving up all German gains and simply returning to the borders of 1914. The answer? No, we want unconditional surrender!

But you're right, it wasn't as unconditional as in 1945.

Fair enough, although some of that sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me.
And yet, according to my sources (again, the info is to be found in post #67) the leading Japanese people were advised that a nuclear weapon was not really feasible any time soon.

More or less agreed. However, a lot of the evidence either way dissapeared down the rabbit holes of Soviet and US nuclear secrecy, or was destroyed during the occupation.

Well, I knew both countries were devloping the bomb, but most of the histories I have read have focused more on Germany (of course for a great many WWII books, the Pacific war kinda gets shoved into the background) than Japan.

Learn something new everyday, ne?

Yep, the war in Asia in general gets the short shift, even in history classes.

(BTW, shouldn't you be teaching now? ;))

Well, really all the German negotiators were allowed to do was listen to the demands and accept them. I wouldn't think that a fair negotiation would've produced something as unfair, one-sided and eventually fatal as Versailles.

The German government had also offered peace previously, one time even including giving up all German gains and simply returning to the borders of 1914. The answer? No, we want unconditional surrender!

But you're right, it wasn't as unconditional as in 1945.

Well I don't think by the time the German's offered to return to their original borders, "Terribly sorry about this war thing chaps, do have another strudel" was going to cut it.

I admit that financial demands imposed by Versailles were stupid and short sighted - as many in Britian believed at that time. That said, 2.5% of the population lying dead in the mud of flanders tends to colour one's view a smidgen. Moreover the reparations were never fully collected.

The division of German territory only made sense, if it is looked at as a measure to prevent war. The trouble is no-one wanted to enforce it.

Well I don't think by the time the German's offered to return to their original borders, "Terribly sorry about this war thing chaps, do have another strudel" was going to cut it.
That is assuming that Germany somehow started WW1, which they didn't of course.

That is assuming that Germany somehow started WW1, which they didn't of course.

They didn't start the whole show. They did however get the British involved. Obviously, Austro-Hungary started the war.

Edit: And they dragged the US in -ish, kind of, maybe. At least officially. (Though I have always subscribed to the theory that the US really entered to protect the liquidity of its war loans to France and the UK. No one wants to talk about that though.)

-snip-
Serbian nationalists shot the Austrian Crown Prince (a terrorist attack...do you see the similarities?)
Austria demanded Serbia give up all its nationalists and more
Russia reckoned it had to defend another slavic nation and put pressure on Austria
Austria asked Germany whether it would help
German diplomats urged the Austrians to back off, but the military assured them they'd get full support
Austria persisted
France was allied to Russia, and was ready to fight "the Hun" to get back what they'd lost in 1871.
Austria declared war on Serbia.
Russia declared war on Austria.
Germany declares war on Russia. Because it is faced with a war on two sides, the Schlieffen plan is prepared, which includes a quick attack through Belgium before Russia is ready to fight. They ask Belgium whether they'd be ready to let German forces pass through if their sovereignty is guaranteed. Belgium refuses.
Germany declares war on France, and begins the march through Belgium, still hoping they won't mind.
Britain feels inclined to protect Belgium's neutrality and declares war on Germany.

Make of that what you will, but Germany did at no point have the chance to back out, except if it meant giving up the alliance with Austria.

- snip -

Yeah, I am familiar with the chronology. And I still stand by Austria starting the war. I also agree that Germany was in a terrible position, so I don't blame them for the war. (I blame austria, it should have listened to the Germans, instead of using the assasination of the Archduke as a pretext to extend their territory in the balkans).

But... the prevailing british attitude at the begining, during, and for until quite some time after the war is that the German invasion of Belgium brought them into the war. Germany was under no treaty obligations to invade beligium, but ny doing so it activated a treaty that Britian had with the Beligians thus forcing Britian to get involved. Now, realistically, that is probably somewhat self-serving as Britian would have got involved anyway at some point owing to the animosity between the two powers, nevertheless, the prevailing opion was that "germany started it", at least as far as the British were concerned.

Today of course opinions are different - at least among those who can read - and it is widely acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around. And frankly, had it not been Austria, something else would have happened probably.

1. Your point being? He was a marine biologist, maybe that's more appropriate as somehow implying he killed people with germs. Ishii did that.

2. Will you please read my post #67. "The japanese miltary experts" were not quite as headless evildoers as you may want them to be.

3. There is no noble goal in war. None. I'm saddened that you still think that way, that somehow you refuse to accept this.
Will it really take WW3 for you to realise?
He knew exactly what he was doing when he issued the orders to form Unit 731; which ultimately weaponized biological weapons for deployment against the Pacific Coast of America. He didn't have the expertise to realize the dream, but he was far from ignorant of what he was doing. And that makes him one of history's greatest villians.

What of it? Sure their views were complicated. But ultimately their concensus was, in the abscense of unexpected leadership and compassion on behalf of the emporer, it is better that Japan be destroyed gloriously, remembered forever, than conquered, diminished and in time forgotten. They were on the 1000 year plan. So? Violent death is violent death. And they, as a whole, prefered more of it.

Almost all the peace that exists now came from war. To deny that is to deny what humanity is, and that prediliction for self delusion kills people with good intentions. Soldiers don't start wars, they end them.

I would like to show you this excellent little piece of writing from another thread. Maybe that'll help.

Actually, I think concerning politics this really is one of THE differences between the USA and Europe. It's not that the US never lost a war (they lost a good few in their time, they just try to ignore them), it's that the USA hardly ever experienced one.

Europe as a continent has seen more wars than bear counting, and they weren't always "our guys fighting them", sometimes they were "some guys fighting some other guys in our cabbage patch, and when they're done they'll steal our food, rape our women and set the house on fire". One of my history teachers once informed me of the amazing fact that my generation and my parent's generation were the first two generations in Germany ever in recorded history to grow up without seeing war in their own country. And Germany wasn't even always involved in the war, if France and Austria decided to fight, it just happened to serve as battleground.
Europeans know first hand that war means sensless and devastating destruction, that it means death and misery for the population, that it takes years to recover from it and that its wounds heal very slowly.

America, on the other hand, experienced only a small handful of wars on its own ground, and no modern wars at all. The American society in general understands war as something you send troops to, who may or may not come back, not as something that will blow your kids up at school, burn your house down and rape your wife at gunpoint.
That's why, I think, Americans were shocked beyond belief about the attacks on the WTC, and that's also why I think the USA regards war as a political instrument.

I would like to show you this excellent little piece of writing from another thread. Maybe that'll help.
I think that America forgets. It's not that we have not experianced such things, but we forget them. Look at every time the US has been attacked, we ALWAYS respond, we ALWAYS say "Never forget! Never again!" 10 years later... 9/11 will be the same. I kept hearing about how this was an attack on American soil and how our oceans no longer protected us.

Which they didn't at Pearl Harbor.
Or during the War of 1812.
Or the American Revolution.
Or... there's many examples.

But then, that is also America's strength, that it DOES eventually forget and moves on to new ideas instead of wallowing in the old.