NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the things that bugs me the most is the fact that people think dropping the bombs (the Atomic bombs) was the wrong thing to do. Post your responses and I'll respond with my evidence that I am to lazy to post right now. Also it seems better to post evidence in response to other people's. I don't know why.

One of the things that bugs me is that too many people (other than China, of course) castigate the US for the bombs and say nothing about the Rape of Nanking or the thousands of atrocities commited by the Japanese in Manchuria (Unit 731?), or the atrocities commited in other countries they occupied.

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

One of the things that bugs me is that too many people (other than China, of course) castigate the US for the bombs and say nothing about the Rape of Nanking or the thousands of atrocities commited by the Japanese in Manchuria (Unit 731?), or the atrocities commited in other countries they occupied.

Or the fact those responsible for 731 got away with it, in exchange for the data they had collected.

Seriously though, i think the bombs were the right thing to do, many japanese and american lives were saved, as the alternative, an invasion of japan would of been horrendous for both sides.

Well, they ended up saving American soldier's lives and shortening the war at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese citizens. If you're the president of the USA, whose lives do you value more? Wouldn't you love to test that shiny new weapon and demonstrate your nation's power? Wouldn't it be nice if the war ended sooner so your troops don't have to invade the Japanese mainland in force, undoubtedly suffering from a high mortality rate? Truman made the right decision for the USA's benefit, saving time, money, and lives.

Yes, and the Japanese Citizens would have suffered worse casulaties as well.

Each Japanese Civlians would have fought to the death, with millions of American, and Millions of Japanese Casulaties.

One of the things that bugs me the most is the fact that people think dropping the bombs (the Atomic bombs) was the wrong thing to do. Post your responses and I'll respond with my evidence that I am to lazy to post right now. Also it seems better to post evidence in response to other people's. I don't know why.

It was wrong for Japan to attack the US, because of the inevitable backlash
from so mighty a power.

For that insolence, they veritably requested utter annihilation, which we had
the good sense not to inflict, but which was the rightful price for their
actions.

The explosives used were larger, or more properly more "destructively dense",
than any that had been used before, but they were just explosives, and they
were used AS explosives to destroy a portion of the enemies "resources" with
the intent of causing pain to the enemy and bringing them closer to
accepting that they'd lost the conflict.

The bombs did their job admirably.


-The REAL Iakeo

Each Japanese Civlians would have fought to the death, with millions of American, and Millions of Japanese Casulaties.
Bull.

They wanted to scare the aforementioned Russians in China.

Bull.

They wanted to scare the aforementioned Russians in China.

Well,.. that too no doubt. :)

And that's what,... WRONG..?!


-The REAL Iakeo

Bull.

They wanted to scare the aforementioned Russians in China.

Then I guess the 20 some thousand of Jap civilians who threw themselves over the cliffs were trying to scare the russkies huh?

Then I guess the 20 some thousand of Jap civilians who threw themselves over the cliffs were trying to scare the russkies huh?
Oh yeah, such a heroic act of resistance! I bet the American soldiers there died in their thousands at the horror! :rolleyes:

Well,.. that too no doubt. :)

And that's what,... WRONG..?!
It would be something, if the US government admitted that that was the intention, instead of this mythical final stand crap.

It would be something, if the US government admitted that that was the intention, instead of this mythical final stand crap.

But that would contradict the glorious myth that the US entered WWII soley out of the goodness of its heart and its hatred of fascism, instead of simply because we were attacked! Oh, and please ignore the fact we were two years late entering, after the Nazis ran roughshod over Europe, plskthnx. Oh, and that we didn't care to open the borders to Jewish immigrants despite their talk of murdering and such.

It would be something, if the US government admitted that that was the intention, instead of this mythical final stand crap.

Do you know anything of the japanese culture? obviously not. There country is more important to them then there children, they would of died for it, hell, even when the bombs were dropped the military tried to kill the emporer to try and stop him declaring peace.


Yes, the japanese would of faught to the last child, it was there homeland, even most american civilians would fight to the death if they were invaded,

and after that, a constant guerilla war lasting a LONG time, the nazis carried on there guerilla campign for 2 years, the japanese one could of lasted a VERY long time, being a constant drain on americas resources.

The Japanese would have fought to the last man, women and child to defend the Emperor, who they believed to be a God (Patton made him admit to the people that he wasn’t). They were training kids to run under tanks with homemade explosive strapped to their back. They were ready. By coaxing a surrender out of the Emperor, we had a legitimate victory, instead of what would have been, a never ending battle that would have left the islands ruined.

Some have said it was to scare the Russians. Maybe it was that also. Maybe we didn’t want Japan to become another failed communist experiment. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Russians murdered, raped and pillaged everything they “liberated”. They didn’t give it back to the original country; they installed puppet governments. Perhaps, we didn’t want to see Poland happen to Japan.

With regards to wrecking Japan, the nuclear bombs achieved nothing that had not already been experienced by two dozen other cities. Whether you use 10,000 tons of incendriaries in a night, or a 10kT nuclear weapon, the result is the same.

It could only have been a demonstration for Russia's benefit. And while that may have been a valid reason, in a sick way, it is not one which is given.

I get pretty sick at heart when people begin trotting out 60+ year-old stereotypes of how unlike the rest of the people on the planet the Japanese supposedly were in the 1940s.

You'd think people were discussing a fucking anthill, not other human beings.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?
Actually yes they would have. While to modern day westerners charging a Sherman tank with a sharpened stick is irrational and not even worth considering, if the Japanese Emperor told them to (and he did) they would have done it willingly. The battle for Okinawa killed about as many people as the bombs did (A-bombs killed around 200,000 Okinawa killed about 187,000). Remember that Okinawa had less people fighting on it and was smaller than Japan? Now using common sense we can figure out that more people would have died in an invasion than in the bombings. And yes scarring the Russians was important issue to Truman, but not the biggest. Think of it as a nice side effect.
Oh and by the way, Vetalia, you are one of the first people I've discussed this with to actually know about the Rape of Nanking.

One of the things that bugs me is that too many people (other than China, of course) castigate the US for the bombs and say nothing about the Rape of Nanking or the thousands of atrocities commited by the Japanese in Manchuria (Unit 731?), or the atrocities commited in other countries they occupied.

I was thinking the same thing. I'd like to say that the US was wrong (we leftists do so on a regular basis, afterall), but in this case, Japan was so insanely brutal that it really has no right to complain about being a target of weapons that killed far less civilians than it killed and ended up ending the war.

It should be realized that the use of the atomic bomb was multi-faceted, just as many other things are.

First we have the obvious and open reason that Japan would most likely have fought for quite a long time. Their military reserves on the home islands included well over a million men, hundreds of suicide rocket-bombs, hundreds of suicide planes, and a vast quantity of small arms, caves and the like. The use of the atomic bombs was an attempt to avoid such a situation.

Beyond that, the Russians were also a factor in the use of the atomic bomb. Firstly and most obviously, Truman and company wanted to keep the Russians out of Japan completely. He didn't want to deal with a divided Japan. Beyond that, he also was looking at the intimidation factor of the atomic bombs, because the Cold War had already kicked in, and the hints to Stalin about a Superweapon wouldn't really take effect unless it was used.

Other reasons exist but I have to go.

I get pretty sick at heart when people begin trotting out 60+ year-old stereotypes of how unlike the rest of the people on the planet the Japanese supposedly were in the 1940s.

You'd think people were discussing a fucking anthill, not other human beings.

Flying a plane into a battle ship is not something I've ever heard of any other countries' fighter pilots doing.

You mean if you could deliver the same firepower in a more efficient manner, you wouldn't?

You know we were trying to win a war right? Why not use all the resources at your disposal?

Or, do you like the idea of the genocide that would have resulted from a full blown invasion?

Flying a plane into a battle ship is not something I've ever heard of any other countries' fighter pilots doing.

Germany did it too in 1945, but, on only 1 mission, including something like 23 planes.

Ok fine it happened once in Germany but people weren't lining up to do it, at least not in the numbers they were in Japan.

Ok fine it happened once in Germany but people weren't lining up to do it, at least not in the numbers they were in Japan.

Oh, i know, sorry, i had to be nitpicky :D your right though, the japanese culture is that of, japan is more important then anyone, except the emporer, your life is worthless compared to japan. Suicide for japan is a worthy death in there eyes, and like i said, even with the invasion eventually over, the guerilla capaign potentially could last decades, and with vietnam etc, i think america would find it very hard to occupy japan all that time, eventually maybe having to pull out, leaving japan to the commies.

Because, to stop the guerilla capaign, they would have to kill every guerilla, which is impossible.

Ok fine it happened once in Germany but people weren't lining up to do it, at least not in the numbers they were in Japan.

Then you don't know Japanese culture very well. They lived by Bushido, or the Way of the Warrior, which holds honor above all. Dying and taking a few of them with you was glorified in combat. Same with an invasion. It was considered dishonorable to surrender. In fact, those who surrendered often commited Seppuku, or ritual suicide, because it was so dishonorable. It was basically lose-lose.

Ok fine it happened once in Germany but people weren't lining up to do it, at least not in the numbers they were in Japan.
Yeah, but even that's not at all the same as what some people have been advancing, which is that Japan was supposedly populated by some strain of human being so dissimilar from the rest of us that they couldn't be counted on to respond like any other group of human beings - i.e. this BS about toddlers fighting to the death with daggers between their teeth to preserve the Emperor-God figure.

Give me a fucking break, guys. That was a load of old 'Yellow Peril' propaganda, and knowing that, it's pretty unbelievably rude to hear it bubbling up again. Next thing, someone's gonna talk in a heartfelt manner about how they "just didn't have the same innate human respect for life as we did", or somesuch nonsense.

Then you don't know Japanese culture very well. They lived by Bushido, or the Way of the Warrior, which holds honor above all. Dying and taking a few of them with you was glorified in combat. Same with an invasion. It was considered dishonorable to surrender. In fact, those who surrendered often commited Seppuku, or ritual suicide, because it was so dishonorable. It was basically lose-lose.

I agree with that 100%. Even when japanese troops liberated captured japanese soldiers, they killed them because they had surrendered.


A tiny minoritie did surrender in singaphore etc, but, in japan, there homeland, none of them would of surrendered.

Yeah, but even that's not at all the same as what some people have been advancing, which is that Japan was supposedly populated by some strain of human being so dissimilar from the rest of us that they couldn't be counted on to respond like any other group of human beings - i.e. this BS about toddlers fighting to the death with daggers between their teeth to preserve the Emperor-God figure.

Give me a fucking break, guys. That was a load of old 'Yellow Peril' propaganda, and knowing that, it's pretty unbelievably rude to hear it bubbling up again. Next thing, someone's gonna talk in a heartfelt manner about how they "just didn't have the same innate human respect for life as we did", or somesuch nonsense.

Im gonna do it again!!! German children faught to the death defending berlin, why not japanese children? whom were more fanaticle for there country then german people were/are?

So, we can point out a historical fact that the Japanese were fighting to the last and comitting ritual suicide instead of surrender, and you can just blow it off as some sort of racism.

thats awesome. You can totally disregard precedent and the word of people who were actually there.

So, we can point out a historical fact that the Japanese were fighting to the last and comitting ritual suicide instead of surrender, and you can just blow it off as some sort of racism.

thats awesome. You can totally disregard precedent and the word of people who were actually there.

Really? dissmiss the word of peopel whom were there? id never do that, ive studied history to long then as to ignore primary sources.

Racism? its there culture, there way of life, nothing racist about it. Ever heard of samurais? thats the logic they live by (not that im saying thats bad)

Im gonna do it again!!! German children faught to the death defending berlin, why not japanese children? whom were more fanaticle for there country then german people were/are?
Yeah? Well my downstairs neighbour abandoned the burned-out shell of the German pillbox he and a school-friend were guarding in the port of Danzig, in the last days of the war, so you can't tell me people were uniformly fanatical in either Germany or Japan. Bushido code be damned, people are people.

Really? dissmiss the word of peopel whom were there? id never do that, ive studied history to long then as to ignore primary sources.

Racism? its there culture, there way of life, nothing racist about it. Ever heard of samurais? thats the logic they live by (not that im saying thats bad)


Not you, dummy. I was talking to Dobbsworld. He's the one dismissing the fact that it happened.

Yeah? Well my downstairs neighbour abandoned the burned-out shell of the German pillbox he and a school-friend were guarding in the port of Danzig, in the last days of the war, so you can't tell me people were uniformly fanatical in either Germany or Japan. Bushido code be damned, people are people.

I agree but, looking at history as a whole, not on individual cases, large numbers of hitler youth units faught untill they were annilated.

On a whole, yes, i can say german children died fighting against both russian and allied soldiers.

I can also say a large majority of japanese children would of done the same , i , and many other countless people who have studied history, or teach it have concluded with the evidence and sources we have today.

Not you, dummy. I was talking to Dobbsworld. He's the one dismissing the fact that it happened.

oh, i am sorry, my bad

Japanese society is indeed very collectivist. They most likely would have fought to the death if ordered to.

Then you don't know Japanese culture very well. They lived by Bushido, or the Way of the Warrior, which holds honor above all. Dying and taking a few of them with you was glorified in combat. Same with an invasion. It was considered dishonorable to surrender. In fact, those who surrendered often commited Seppuku, or ritual suicide, because it was so dishonorable. It was basically lose-lose.

Wow! It's incredibly refreshing to hear the correct terms being used! I would have brought them up myself. You are completely correct, in Japan there was no surrender. You basically had two options: victory or death.

Also, how can anyone say that the Japanese wouldn't have fought down to the last civilian? They still refused to surrender even AFTER we dropped the first bomb! It took two bombs, along with the (empty) threat that we had more ready to go to force them to surrender. Japanese officers still carried samurai swords, for crying out loud. It's insulting to me (even though I'm an American, and not Japanese) that people can try to talk about this culture without understanding how important the samurai spirit was to them, and then proceed to say that we made a wrong decision. You need to know the enemy before you can make informed decisions in wartime.

Wow! It's incredibly refreshing to hear the correct terms being used! I would have brought them up myself. You are completely correct, in Japan there was no surrender. You basically had two options: victory or death.

Also, how can anyone say that the Japanese wouldn't have fought down to the last civilian? They still refused to surrender even AFTER we dropped the first bomb! It took two bombs, along with the (empty) threat that we had more ready to go to force them to surrender. Japanese officers still carried samurai swords, for crying out loud. It's insulting to me (even though I'm an American, and not Japanese) that people can try to talk about this culture without understanding how important the samurai spirit was to them, and then proceed to say that we made a wrong decision. You need to know the enemy before you can make informed decisions in wartime.

Coudent agree more, only to add that, after the second bomb, the military tried to kill the emporer to stop him surrendering japan, which was/is a greater disgrace then killing the emporer. (or shogun ;) )

Yeah? Well my downstairs neighbour abandoned the burned-out shell of the German pillbox he and a school-friend were guarding in the port of Danzig, in the last days of the war, so you can't tell me people were uniformly fanatical in either Germany or Japan. Bushido code be damned, people are people.

Yeah, but that wasn't nearly as much an integral part of German culture as it was in Japan. In Japan, they had been raised that way for (literally) a millenia. 1000 years of culture is what MAKES people.

Fine. Go ahead and believe whatever suits you, then. I think you're all full of it, personally - I don't believe for a minute that any human population can be counted on to act as some super-unified meta-entity, like a hive of bees, for example, but if so much of your argument hinges on that supposition being true, then who am I to argue?

Enjoy.

Fine. Go ahead and believe whatever suits you, then. I think you're all full of it, personally - I don't believe for a minute that any human population can be counted on to act as some super-unified meta-entity, like a hive of bees, for example, but if so much of your argument hinges on that supposition being true, then who am I to argue?

Enjoy.


Thats your opinion, i just happened to be very well educated on the subject, hey, what the hell do i know?! :rolleyes:

If im full of it, i beleive you have a blind ignorance for historicle facts and knowlage of other cultures. For the love of god, dont beleive just what an average history book says.... something by L.S stavrianos will set you straignt, an excellent historian.

Fine. Go ahead and believe whatever suits you, then. I think you're all full of it, personally - I don't believe for a minute that any human population can be counted on to act as some super-unified meta-entity, like a hive of bees, for example, but if so much of your argument hinges on that supposition being true, then who am I to argue?

Enjoy.
Don't really believe much then do you?

*sticks your fingers back into your ears*

Fine. Go ahead and believe whatever suits you, then. I think you're all full of it, personally - I don't believe for a minute that any human population can be counted on to act as some super-unified meta-entity, like a hive of bees, for example, but if so much of your argument hinges on that supposition being true, then who am I to argue?

Enjoy.

Of course you don't believe it. You weren't raised in a culture like that. You were raised in a culture that avoids that kind of collective belief. I suppose you also wouldn't believe that groups people would commit mass suicide because a crazy guy told them to... but it's happened. More than once.

Don't really believe much then do you?

*sticks your fingers back into your ears*
Don't really have a lot to say, then do you, Colodia?

:rolleyes:

Thats your opinion, i just happened to be very well educated on the subject, hey, what the hell do i know?! :rolleyes:

If im full of it, i beleive you have a blind ignorance for historicle facts and knowlage of other cultures. For the love of god, dont beleive just what an average history book says.... something by L.S stavrianos will set you straignt, an excellent historian.

I'm pretty well-educated on Japanese culture myself (personal interest). But as far as I know, a lot of history books, even the average ones, point out the Japanese 'fight to the last man' mentality.

Don't really have a lot to say, then do you, Colodia?

:rolleyes:
Nothing much to say to someone who doesn't like to hear the truth, now is there?

Any human population, given the right circumstances and preferably the right leaders, can be turned 180 degrees and toward whatever they believe is the right way to go. Whatever way they believe is the right way to go depends on the situation and the leaders.

And indeed, people can be made to believe that they must fight to the death to save their land from an evil invading force.

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?


It was not their numbers or weapons, it was their will. These are people who are willing to blow themselves up to kill us. We need a God-like weapon to make the occupation bearable.

And indeed, people can be made to believe that they must fight to the death to save their land from an evil invading force.
See, I guess I've just got too much of an anarcho-syndicalist streak in me to ever obey authority unquestioningly. And I've always assumed there's at least a little bit of that in everybody.

So, I am completely and overwhelmingly (and no doubt most pleasingly for some of you at least,) wrong in my take on how given groups of people act. Well, you're quite right, I don't have textbooks or war movies to draw upon, nor have I made Feudal Japan a part of my studies. So there you go.

I still think there's a strong element of sham involved in this. But you go on and enjoy. I'm all done.

See, I guess I've just got too much of an anarcho-syndicalist streak in me to ever obey authority unquestioningly. And I've always assumed there's at least a little bit of that in everybody.

So, I am completely and overwhelmingly (and no doubt most pleasingly for some of you at least,) wrong in my take on how given groups of people act. Well, you're quite right, I don't have textbooks or war movies to draw upon, nor have I made Feudal Japan a part of my studies. So there you go.

I still think there's a strong element of sham involved in this. But you go on and enjoy. I'm all done.

And I've got a streak in me that leads me to reject any and all make-up and dresses.

But if I had been raised where such things were the norm, you can beat I'd be wearing make-up and a dress right now instead of jeans and a T-Shirt.

You can't say conclusively that since you have this streak in you that someone IN ANOTHER CULTURE would just HAVE to have that.

You can't say conclusively that since you have this streak in you that someone IN ANOTHER CULTURE would just HAVE to have that.
I didn't conclude anything. Clever trous.

Yep. I find government propaganda a lot like marketing.

"This is what we offer. This is what they offer. We're better than them because of this. Now you do this."

Only difference?

"This is our way. This is their way. We're better than them because of this. Now you follow us."

Wow... this thread is rather late, I would have thought it would have shown up at the begining of August.

So... once again!

The Japanese do NOT have a hive mentality. They do NOT march lockstep with everyone else in their society. What they DO have is a highly devloped ideal of togetherness, which makes a lot of sense if you have ever been to Japan and seen just how close people are. You want harmony (more in a bit) more than anything else, because disharmony tends to get out of control really quickly and you just can't move away. So it's not so much as the Japanese are not individualistic, they are (I have a number of students I could introduce you to, to prove this), but they are far more considerate of others than I see the average American being.

Also, it should be noted that the Japanese do not react to guilt. Guilt is a western concept, it's inwards and (was originally) religious based. You are supposed to feel guilty when you do something bad. That sense of guilt is not present in Japanese culture, instead it is shame. Shame is outwards, it comes from people rejecting you and shaming you for your actions.

The result is that you tend to follow what others are doing because you are considerate of others before yourself and you don't wish to be shamed and tossed out of the group.

However, it should also be noted that in this society where wa (harmony) is so valued, it's a very, very rigidly vertial society. Concensus is built from the top down, everyone has a rank and every knows his or her place within that ranking system. The language itself reflects this paradox where your surperior will NEVER say "Do this!" but rather, "Perhaps we should...", but it means "Do this!"

The Showa Emperor as god.
This is a little difficult as god isn't god. The emperor was said to be a kami. Kami are far closer to the Native American shamanistic spirits than they are to the western preception of god(s). However, one idea that had been rammed down the people's throats, and one that they (and many Japanese still do) believed is that Japan is a unique nation, and the Japanese a unique people. They are lead by the emperor from whom all athority and moralaity is derived (remember what I said about a vertical society). This emperor is not only a kami and decided in a line unbroken from Amateratsu Omikami (Sun goddess), but he is the father to the Japanese people. Japanese propaganda reinerated this idea time and time again, the emperor is the father of the Japanese family.

And believe you me, family is VERY important in Japan. And there are four traditional fears of the Japanese people, one of them is Father.

It is unknown how much the Japanese population really did believe that the Showa Emperor was a kami, however, the respect generated by him and to him is well known. He was their father (and in many ways, still is. If you want to see silliness, watch what happens when the Emperor comes into town), and they would do what he would ask.

As for bamboo poles, yes. Japanese junior high school children, boys and girls, we being trained how to attack American GIs by thrusting a bamboo pole into their necks as they landed on the beach. The propaganda machine had turned the image of Americans and the Alies so evil that many were sure that should the home islands be invaded, the alies would be rapping anything that moved, eat the bodies of the dead and dying, and drink the blood of infants (usual stuff). So strong was this belief that many women and children were sent to the mountains in central Japan to hide from the American occupation. It took about 6 months before the population realized that the Americans were probably just as scared of them as they were of the Americans and nothing was going to happen.

Finally, Japan had never been invaded before, never beaten. The last time it happened, a kamikaze (divine wind) came to save Japan, twice. There was a belief that the kami would interced again, if the people could just hold out a little bit longer and not lose faith.

So, Dobbsworld, would have ALL the Japanese attacked and fought to the death? No, of course not. Would MOST have? Yes, yes they would have.

I hope that clears up things a bit.

Well since I think none of us have the same amount of insite into Japanese culture (and because he supportred me) I think that pretty much ends the debate

Well since I think none of us have the same amount of insite into Japanese culture (and because he supportred me) I think that pretty much ends the debate
Um... I wasn't supporting you (you haven't really layed out your argument yet). I was responding to the hive mentality vs Dobbsworld and answering Tactical Grace.

And I think the rule in General is never declare yourself the winner of a thread... bad things happen when you do.

A good protion of this argument seems based upon theorizing the Jappanesse reaction to an invasion of the home islands. I am not a jappanophile so I can not make any informed statements on the national character of that nation at that time. I am a student of history so I can look at objective facts and events that occured. First the casualty rates on Okinawa and Iwo Jima definately indicate that an invasion of Jappan would be much more costly in human life than the nuclear bombing. Secondly it must be pointed out that neither atomic bomb was the most devistating air raid of that conflict. What finally convinces me that it was the right decision was that it happened twice. This means that after being attacked by an unbefore used weapon that destroyed an entire city the leadership of Jappan was not convinced that they should surrender. Further the lack of a surrender would (in the eyes of their leadership) not cause an uncontrollable amount of discontent. It was after the United States showed a willingness and ability to continue to use atomic bombs that surrender was acheived.
It has been said that we were also trying to intimidate the Soviets. Possibly so. If true than it is unfortunate for the millions who died in Eastern Europe who suffered under Stalin that we did not also have these WMDs to use on Germany. If this makes me a racist than I am a strange one as I am three quarters German.....

And I think the rule in General is never declare yourself the winner of a thread... bad things happen when you do.
Sorry, I just signed up 2 days ago. I didn't really me to declare my self winner but looking back it seems that I was.

Sorry, I just signed up 2 days ago. I didn't really me to declare my self winner but looking back it seems that I was.
I meant that just as a warning, mainly because as soon as you say, "I won!" half of General seems to show up to prove you wrong. ;)

But what ARE your arguments for your position?

I have an opinion on this, but it is divided. The reason for this is because I don't know the *true* reason for the bombs dropping, or the frame of mind of Japan's populace. So I will say that if the reason that the bombs were dropped on Japan was to ultimately save U.S. and Japanese lives, then dropping the bombs was justified. However, there are a couple of questions that I've never seen answered.

I've heard the mention that the bombs dropping were a warning to the Soviets. Even people who think dropping the bombs was the right thing to do to end the war acknowledge that this was at least part of the reason for dropping the bombs. One of the questions that I have is the state of the Soviet military. If the Soviet military was ready and capable, they could have carried out the invasion of Japan without much U.S. involvement, thus sparing U.S. lives. Now, I realize that according to many people, this would have been costly in lives to the Japanese, but I think it's worth remembering that after the war, a survey was taken in the U.S., the results of which stated that most people felt that more bombs should've been dropped. If the populace wasn't concerned about Japanese lives, was the government? Perhaps.

The second question is more forthright. If the Japanese would rather be dead than surrender, then why did they?

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?
Funny thing is, that's exactly what they were training their women and children to do, besides running up to a group of GIs to explode a grenade or duck under an American tank with explosives and go *boom*

I'm going to make this simple for everyone.

Anyone on this thread who says the Japanese would not have fought to the last man, woman and child has absolutely no basis in the real history of WWII Japanese culture. Period.

The US actually SAVED Japanese lives by dropping the bombs. I'm not saying that's why the US dropped the bombs, of course, just stating a fact. And anyone who has read about the situation or spoken to American soldiers who fought against the Japanese knows that it is, indeed, a fact.

I'm going to make this simple for everyone.

Anyone on this thread who says the Japanese would not have fought to the last man, woman and child has absolutely no basis in the real history of WWII Japanese culture. Period.

The US actually SAVED Japanese lives by dropping the bombs. I'm not saying that's why the US dropped the bombs, of course, just stating a fact. And anyone who has read about the situation or spoken to American soldiers who fought against the Japanese knows that it is, indeed, a fact.

As you favor simplicity, I'll answer you simply: you are absolutely wrong on the first claim but correct on the second.

(And don't pull that ignorance card unless you are ready to claim that the authors of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War) (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html) compiled
between August 1945 and July 1946 were absolutely ignorant of the people they interviewed. And if you pull it on that, then I suggest dropping by for a visit. I'm sure I can set you up to meet with some Japanese of a certain age that I know who would love to hear you explain why they are absolutely ignorant of the events that they lived through... ;))

(Also, re-read NERVUN's comments above.)

As you favor simplicity, I'll answer you simply: you are absolutely wrong on the first claim but correct on the second.

(And don't pull that ignorance card unless you are ready to claim that the authors of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War) (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html) compiled
between August 1945 and July 1946 were absolutely ignorant of the people they interviewed. And if you pull it on that, then I suggest dropping by for a visit. I'm sure I can set you up to meet with some Japanese of a certain age that I know who would love to hear you explain why they are absolutely ignorant of the events that they lived through... ;))

(Also, re-read NERVUN's comments above.)
:rolleyes:

Yeah. Use the suffering of others in a war to prove your point.

Germans suffered.
Americans suffered.
British suffered.
Russia suffered.
Japanese suffered.

What point are you trying to make? That some people's suffering should be held up higher than others?

My grandfather was bombed in Burma by the Japanese and my grandfather orphaned at the age of 10. Does that mean that my view that the Japanese needed to be a-bombed to end the war is morally higher than yours because I'm related to one of the MILLIONS of people who suffered?

No. I'm above using my relatives for that. Seems like you aren't above using the suffering of others to prove your point.

Baaaaaaad!

I've heard the mention that the bombs dropping were a warning to the Soviets. Even people who think dropping the bombs was the right thing to do to end the war acknowledge that this was at least part of the reason for dropping the bombs. One of the questions that I have is the state of the Soviet military. If the Soviet military was ready and capable, they could have carried out the invasion of Japan without much U.S. involvement, thus sparing U.S. lives. Now, I realize that according to many people, this would have been costly in lives to the Japanese, but I think it's worth remembering that after the war, a survey was taken in the U.S., the results of which stated that most people felt that more bombs should've been dropped. If the populace wasn't concerned about Japanese lives, was the government? Perhaps.speculation... I don't think the US wanted Japan under Soviet domain. and I don't think the Japanese wanted to be under Soiviet domain either.

The second question is more forthright. If the Japanese would rather be dead than surrender, then why did they?Because their Emperor said to surrender, just as he earlier told them to fight to the death to defend their homeland.

If the Emporer had been assinated before he made his recorded surrender speech, then the war would've gone on with catastrophic results.

Dropping the Atomic Bombs was not, by any shot, wrong.


See, what people dont understand, is that these people, the Japanese, would not have easily surrendered. In the Japanese Culture, surrender is a discrase. Its bad. Its wrong. Its frowned apon. Regular bombing, or taking most of their territory didnt even make them THINK about surrendering.

What about a hostile takeover, an invasion? No. Before the dropping, it was predicted that 1,000,000+ American lives would have been lost. 1 Million!
The people lost during both bombings combined was around 250,000 - a fourth of what would have been lost in an invasion.

I still think that droping the bombs was the correct thing to do.

:rolleyes:

Yeah. Use the suffering of others in a war to prove your point.

Germans suffered.
Americans suffered.
British suffered.
Russia suffered.
Japanese suffered.

What point are you trying to make? That some people's suffering should be held up higher than others?

My grandfather was bombed in Burma by the Japanese and my grandfather orphaned at the age of 10. Does that mean that my view that the Japanese needed to be a-bombed to end the war is morally higher than yours because I'm related to one of the MILLIONS of people who suffered?

No. I'm above using my relatives for that. Seems like you aren't above using the suffering of others to prove your point.

Baaaaaaad!


Huh? Sorry, I've read and re-read your post several times, and I still don't understand what you are on about. :confused:

Huh? Sorry, I've read and re-read your post several times, and I still don't understand what you are on about. :confused:
...Curses. I'm too tired from water polo practice to go on again anyway.

I think they ment you were using the suffering of others to prove your point, and that everyone in WWII suffered. In a war that killed 55 million people for some reason we debate the morallity of killing 160,00 (American estimate) to 250,000 (Japanese estimant) people.Even if 250,000 people were killed that isn't even 1% of the total deaths.

I think they ment you were using the suffering of others to prove your point, and that everyone in WWII suffered. In a war that killed 55 million people for some reason we debate the morallity of killing 160,00 (American estimate) to 250,000 (Japanese estimant) people.Even if 250,000 people were killed that isn't even 1% of the total deaths.
...There we go, and I was condeming that. Thanks.

I think they ment you were using the suffering of others to prove your point, and that everyone in WWII suffered. In a war that killed 55 million people for some reason we debate the morallity of killing 160,00 (American estimate) to 250,000 (Japanese estimant) people.Even if 250,000 people were killed that isn't even 1% of the total deaths.

And I still don't understand how that was drawn out of my post. I said nothing about suffering on anyside or the relative morality of Japanese versus Allied deaths whatsoever. Both of you go back and read both my post and the post I was responding to.

Glamorgane claimed:
1) The Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman, and child.
2) Anyone who claimed different was ignorant of Japanese culture at the time.

I claimed he was wrong on the first count because civilian moral was no longer in complete support of the war. And he was wrong on the second count because both US military documents and people I know here in Japan who lived through the war that demonstrate his claim to be incorrect are most certainly not ignorant of Japanese culture at the time.

Where either of you read anything of the sort you are claiming to be condeming, I do not know, but it certainly wasn't in my post.

As you favor simplicity, I'll answer you simply: you are absolutely wrong on the first claim but correct on the second.

(And don't pull that ignorance card unless you are ready to claim that the authors of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War) (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html) compiled
between August 1945 and July 1946 were absolutely ignorant of the people they interviewed. And if you pull it on that, then I suggest dropping by for a visit. I'm sure I can set you up to meet with some Japanese of a certain age that I know who would love to hear you explain why they are absolutely ignorant of the events that they lived through... ;))

(Also, re-read NERVUN's comments above.)

I've had the privilege of speaking with many veterans who fought against the Japanese. If there was a loss of will to fight in the Japanese those men would shake their head sadly at you and what you think you know or they would call you a liar to your face.

You can ask the Japanese anything you want after the fact. The truth is that wherever the United States military fought them the Japanese fought to the last man (or close enough as makes no difference).

As our military got closer to the home islands of Japan, that fanaticism became even more pronounced. Please read about the Battle of Okinawa if you doubt. That was mere months before the dropping of atomic bombs.

The Japanese military was ready to initiate a coup d'etat after the bombs had dropped in order to continue the war. While this may have had a smaller effect on the civilian populace (i.e. less civilians taking up arms to "fight to the death" for the military than for the Emperor) it DOES mean that, if successful, the coup would have enabled the remainder of the Japanese military to exact a terrible toll on American lives in a proposed attack on the Home Islands.

There is an intangible here as well that you don't take into consideration. Men (and, I suppose, women) in a state of war don't fight because they want to. They fight because they feel they must. They fight because they, rightly or wrongly, believe that their neighbor, or family, or friends will judge them poorly if they don't. In a culture as obsessed with honor and shame as the Japanese were at that time, can you honestly say that the people of Japan would not have fought if the long awaited (and long slandered) American military had invaded their home? Their country?

No, I think it far, far more likely that a vast majority of Japanese civilians would have fought. We KNOW that the Japanese military would have fought. And at the BAREST minimum we know that the cost would have been horrendous in American lives.

The choice to drop the bomb was ridiculously easy. And just as obvious in its righteousness for America.

The Japanese commited warcrimes that make the use of nuclear weapons look like an act of mercy, really. I think the real question is whether the Rape of Nanking was justified.

What about the Japanese surrender? (17th June 1945, if I recall correctly - the Japanese Emperor telegrammed Truman asking for peace, and a meeting of Truman and Admiral Leahy a few days later concluded that the Japanese wanted to surrender). The bomb was dropped just to make Stalin jump.

It did have one good side-effect. Those people in Hiroshima & Nagasaki were unwillingly martyred, to show WHY nukes should never ever be used again.

I think it's the least the rest of the world can do, to thank those martyrs for their sacrifice.

I was thinking the same thing. I'd like to say that the US was wrong (we leftists do so on a regular basis, afterall), but in this case, Japan was so insanely brutal that it really has no right to complain about being a target of weapons that killed far less civilians than it killed and ended up ending the war.
Amen.

I've had the privilege of speaking with many veterans who fought against the Japanese. If there was a loss of will to fight in the Japanese those men would shake their head sadly at you and what you think you know or they would call you a liar to your face.

You can ask the Japanese anything you want after the fact. The truth is that wherever the United States military fought them the Japanese fought to the last man (or close enough as makes no difference).
*Burinku burinku burinku* Uh... okaaaay. Please re-read what I had posted in this thread, THEN re-read what Daistallia 2104 posted, THEN please tell me how Japanese civilians are wrong about their own support for the war at that time and place, but American servicemen who never got to Japan are.

I'm very interested in hearing your answer.

As for surrender in July of 1945. As I have noted (again and again and again) the surrender the Japanese were asking for was not unconditional surrender, but instead they were asking for retention of the Imperial family as well as retention of the full powers granted to the emperor under the Meiji Constitution, pretty much unlimited.

It should be noted that the Showa Emperor knew the war was lost, but he was bound and determined to protect the Imperial Throne, no matter the cost of Japanese lives (it should be noted that the Showa Emperor was a very complex human, who believed that what was best for the Imperial Throne was best for the nation. He was Japan).

That was the condition to Japan's surrender, which America had already rejected under the policy of unconditional surrender.

It should also be noted that after the war, when the Showa Emperor used the bombs as a face saving meassure, and Japan stood down, the Japanese, well aware that SCAP was coming and would institute changes in the goverment, helpfully prepared a new constitution for Gen MacArthur (this is why I love the Japanese). That draft was the Meiji Constitution with a few changes made, but preserved all powers of the Imperial Throne.

The American responce was thanks, but WE'LL write the bloody thing, thank you.

What about the Japanese surrender? (17th June 1945, if I recall correctly - the Japanese Emperor telegrammed Truman asking for peace, and a meeting of Truman and Admiral Leahy a few days later concluded that the Japanese wanted to surrender). The bomb was dropped just to make Stalin jump.

Yes they did want peace, but they wanted to keep much of the conquered territory in their controll and to leave the millitary leadership in charge. This of course is no diffrent than letting Hitler stay in power, and it would onyl lead to another Japanese war of agression. If they wanted to surrend totaly why did we wait 3 months? The idea that an American president would continue on a war that is killing thousands of Americnas just to scare the Russians is insanity and it would be impossible to contain.

[QUOTE=NERVUN]*Burinku burinku burinku* Uh... okaaaay. Please re-read what I had posted in this thread, THEN re-read what Daistallia 2104 posted, THEN please tell me how Japanese civilians are wrong about their own support for the war at that time and place, but American servicemen who never got to Japan are.

I'm very interested in hearing your answer.

QUOTE]

You are relying on people answering questions after the fact. A person's actions in war are not so easily intellectualized. You are dealing with the issue in purely theoretical way since those Japanese never HAD to fight.

What I am telling you is that every single soldier, Marine and sailor who fought the Japanese will tell you how fanatical they were. Every single one of them can tell you how they fought to the last man. Every single one of them who fought in the Battle of Okinawa, the last major engagement in the Pacific theater before the bomb, can tell you about the fierceness of the fighting and how women and children chose to commit suicide before surrendering to the Americans.

Bottom line: You have a sanitary report written after the fact. I have multiple conversations with people who were actually there and are still scarred by the things they have seen.

I will take their word over your "study" any day.

You are relying on people answering questions after the fact. A person's actions in war are not so easily intellectualized. You are dealing with the issue in purely theoretical way since those Japanese never HAD to fight.
As are you, you are relying on recollections of those who were there after the fact, and you are also forecasting based upon your knowledge of the situation and of Japanese culture. Which is what we are both doing, depending upon our knowledge of the war and Japanese culture society. I base my conclusions on studying Japan, its history and culture, before, during, and after the war. What do you base yours off of?

So you end up invalidating your own argument.

What I am telling you is that every single soldier, Marine and sailor who fought the Japanese will tell you how fanatical they were. Every single one of them can tell you how they fought to the last man. Every single one of them who fought in the Battle of Okinawa, the last major engagement in the Pacific theater before the bomb, can tell you about the fierceness of the fighting and how women and children chose to commit suicide before surrendering to the Americans.
Yes, yes, I do know this as I have also talked with such folk as well. I am well aware of what happened at Okinawa, not only from reading histories, but talking with those who were there, on both sides. I'm not sure if you are also aware that many of those that commited suicide were forced to by the Imperial Japanese Army (an interview published by the Japan Times has a very heart rendering account of a Japanese junior high school girl who had been drafted as a nurse in the caves and her failed suicide attempt. Thankfully, the gernade she had been given failed to go off, but she saw her school mates blown apart by those that had worked. She was found in a pile of dead by, of all things, a nisei Navy corpsman. From the article, I gathered she was rather surpised to see a Japanese speaking person in a US uniform, and who didn't rape her, but fed her soup).

Bottom line: You have a sanitary report written after the fact. I have multiple conversations with people who were actually there and are still scarred by the things they have seen.

I will take their word over your "study" any day.
That's nice. Now then, I would like you to look next to Daistallia 2104's and my posts and see our locations. We base what we know not only from reading and studying, but from talking with those who were there. Daistallia 2104 was making the point that the Japanese civilians were, by war's end, very tired. He was also making the point that he knows this from both his studies and talking with survivors IN Japan, where we both are. I would dare say that we might have superior access to Japanese eye witnesses who know damn well what they were feeling at the time, as well as both Japanese and English sources and viewpoints on the war.

We will (thankfully) never know how many would attack if the home islands were invaded. I maintain from everything I have read and heard, and the folks I have talked to, that many would have attacked or resisted. But to say that the whole of the Japanese race was fantically devoted to dying is very, very wrong.

We have talked with those who were there, and they don't sanatize what the US did either.

One of the things that bugs me the most is the fact that people think dropping the bombs (the Atomic bombs) was the wrong thing to do. Post your responses and I'll respond with my evidence that I am to lazy to post right now. Also it seems better to post evidence in response to other people's. I don't know why.

Aren't some of these the same jackasses that beleave we never landed on the moon?

I don't know how to parse your post into smaller blocks of html quotes, so I will answer within your own post but with a different text color.

As are you, you are relying on recollections of those who were there after the fact, and you are also forecasting based upon your knowledge of the situation and of Japanese culture. Which is what we are both doing, depending upon our knowledge of the war and Japanese culture society. I base my conclusions on studying Japan, its history and culture, before, during, and after the war. What do you base yours off of?

So you end up invalidating your own argument.

Not at all. What I am saying is that people can sit there and say they were tired of war, but that does NOT mean they would not have fought if war were brought to their doorstep. In no way is my argument invalidated.

I base my argument on conversations with the men who were there on the ground. Fighting. Men who fought the Japanese and know what battle means. Are you?

Yes, yes, I do know this as I have also talked with such folk as well. I am well aware of what happened at Okinawa, not only from reading histories, but talking with those who were there, on both sides. I'm not sure if you are also aware that many of those that commited suicide were forced to by the Imperial Japanese Army (an interview published by the Japan Times has a very heart rendering account of a Japanese junior high school girl who had been drafted as a nurse in the caves and her failed suicide attempt. Thankfully, the gernade she had been given failed to go off, but she saw her school mates blown apart by those that had worked. She was found in a pile of dead by, of all things, a nisei Navy corpsman. From the article, I gathered she was rather surpised to see a Japanese speaking person in a US uniform, and who didn't rape her, but fed her soup).

And the fact that civilians committed suicide at the orders of the Army strengthens your point how? If anything it is an eloquent argument for me, not you. You say those civilians were tired of war and were not enamored with death, yet they committed suicide at the orders of the Army. As I'm sure you are aware, the Okinawan men were fighting while their women and children were jumping off cliffs and eating grenades. This is a PERFECT argument for how fanatical the Japanese Army was and how quickly Japanese civilians fell into lockstep with them when ordered.

Multiply Okinawa by a factor of ten, or maybe a hundred, and that is what the invasion of the Home Islands would be.

That's nice. Now then, I would like you to look next to Daistallia 2104's and my posts and see our locations. We base what we know not only from reading and studying, but from talking with those who were there. Daistallia 2104 was making the point that the Japanese civilians were, by war's end, very tired. He was also making the point that he knows this from both his studies and talking with survivors IN Japan, where we both are. I would dare say that we might have superior access to Japanese eye witnesses who know damn well what they were feeling at the time, as well as both Japanese and English sources and viewpoints on the war.

That's great. Knowing what they felt, in retrospect, is good to know. What I am saying, and have been saying repeatedly, is that such feelings are ultimately divorced from what actually happened. From what WOULD have happened. If you ask any American soldier how sick he was of war by that time I'm sure he'd tell you exactly what the Japanese did. That he was heartily tired of war and wanted it to end. But he fought. And if we had invaded the Home Islands, the Japanese would've fought too, if for no other reason than that the Japanese Army would not have let them NOT fight. I don't think that the JA would've needed to convince them, though.

We will (thankfully) never know how many would attack if the home islands were invaded. I maintain from everything I have read and heard, and the folks I have talked to, that many would have attacked or resisted. But to say that the whole of the Japanese race was fantically devoted to dying is very, very wrong.

I never said they were dovoted to dying. I said they were fanatical in their willingness to fight to the death. Those are two very different things. That they fought to the death for a lost cause shows that their culture and their training of self-sacrifice was more powerful than their instinct for self-preservation. The Japanese would have fought in the hundreds of thousands if the US had invaded the Home Islands. There is absolutely no doubt about it, no matter how many people say they were tired of war. Of course they were tired of war. That makes no difference when war shows up, whether you're tired of it or not.

We have talked with those who were there, and they don't sanatize what the US did either.

I'd be willing to bet that they'd sanitize the Rape of Nanking, though...

We had to drop them, the invasion and occupation of Japan without the bombs was a non-feasable situation at the time. The casualties resulting from such an invasion would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a sunny afternoon having tea with the President.

We had to drop them, the invasion and occupation of Japan without the bombs was a non-feasable situation at the time. The casualties resulting from such an invasion would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a sunny afternoon having tea with the President.
One you may be able to argue was needed but two, both on population centres?

One you may be able to argue was needed but two, both on population centres?

Both cities were viable military targets.

I'm not saying that we dropped the bombs not knowing that we would kill civilians. But both targets were military targets.

Both cities were viable military targets.

I'm not saying that we dropped the bombs not knowing that we would kill civilians. But both targets were military targets.
Correction there were military targets located at or near both cities. They were and never have been legitimate military targets.
B52's could fly over Japan pretty much unmolested at altitude, the Japanese did not have the resources or equipment to intercept them. So presision bombing could have taken out the military targets. However the US were using smaller bombs and incenduaries, which although no good against hard military targets were very effective against the civilian buildings and infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, the same was going on in Europe (Dresden) but it was not an overarching policy as it was against the Japanese.
So I say again what did two do that one would not?

Correction there were military targets located at or near both cities. They were and never have been legitimate military targets.
B52's could fly over Japan pretty much unmolested at altitude, the Japanese did not have the resources or equipment to intercept them. So presision bombing could have taken out the military targets. However the US were using smaller bombs and incenduaries, which although no good against hard military targets were very effective against the civilian buildings and infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, the same was going on in Europe (Dresden) but it was not an overarching policy as it was against the Japanese.
So I say again what did two do that one would not?

What do you consider a military target? I consider it to be a target that, having been destroyed, harms the enemy's capacity to make war or damages their willingness to make war.

Oh, and there was really no such thing as precision bombing during WWII. The closest thing anyone had to that was the Norton Bomb Sight, but that was far from being "precision bombing".

What do you consider a military target? I consider it to be a target that, having been destroyed, harms the enemy's capacity to make war or damages their willingness to make war.

Oh, and there was really no such thing as precision bombing during WWII. The closest thing anyone had to that was the Norton Bomb Sight, but that was far from being "precision bombing".#
Then why not use gas or biological weapons?

why centre the bombs over the areas of p[opulation rather than over the 'legitimate' target areas?

Capturing and torturing to death their women and children may have 'harmed thier willingness to make war' that does not make it legitimate. Your argument appears to advocate doing whatever it takes to win.

I am not saying the use of the bomb did not shorten the war or say US lives, all I question is the use of two, and the targets that were chosen.

I agree there was not a lot of precision bombing in WWII but the UK used Grand Slam bombs with a high degree of accuracy. They were not always successfull. Also the allied bomber with the lowest rates of attrition was also one of the most accurate, the mosquito. And as air cover and defenses were weakened they were more and more accurate.

That's pretty much what happened. Look at Okinawa women were throwing there own children into the sea to avoid the Americans and you seriously are saying they would not have fought to the last man?

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

That was an added benefit, but the casualty figures for the US were expected at 1 million if you you the same ratio of US to Japanese casualties from Okinawa and extrapolate the #'s you're looking at a sterile Japan.


Bull.

They wanted to scare the aforementioned Russians in China.

Foe a person who's normally pretty locked on despite being on the wrong side of most issues you are so off the mark on this. While this may seem utterly alien to you, the Japanese of a generation ago will so fully indoctrinated into the cult of the emperor woman were throwing there own children into the sea to keep then from American hands. Japan was mass producing suicide aircraft, that alone speaks volumes.

Yeah, but even that's not at all the same as what some people have been advancing, which is that Japan was supposedly populated by some strain of human being so dissimilar from the rest of us that they couldn't be counted on to respond like any other group of human beings - i.e. this BS about toddlers fighting to the death with daggers between their teeth to preserve the Emperor-God figure.

Give me a fucking break, guys. That was a load of old 'Yellow Peril' propaganda, and knowing that, it's pretty unbelievably rude to hear it bubbling up again. Next thing, someone's gonna talk in a heartfelt manner about how they "just didn't have the same innate human respect for life as we did", or somesuch nonsense.

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

knives and karate, as well as any guns on hand.

it was a large, populous country, and an invasion would have resulted in millions (likely) of deaths.

Dobbs compair the numbers od Japanese POWs to that of the Germans or any other country during the war. That should convince you.



Yeah? Well my downstairs neighbour abandoned the burned-out shell of the German pillbox he and a school-friend were guarding in the port of Danzig, in the last days of the war, so you can't tell me people were uniformly fanatical in either Germany or Japan. Bushido code be damned, people are people.

speculation... I don't think the US wanted Japan under Soviet domain. and I don't think the Japanese wanted to be under Soiviet domain either.Of course it's speculation. I stated that I've never seen a report that gave the Soviet military capacity. I don't know why that is, just that it is. In the absence of that information, it is necessary to speculate.
What the U.S. wants and what is justified are two separate things. When they coincide, that's wonderful. I don't know if they coincide in this case, though. As far as the Japanese not wanting a Soviet invasion, that's a given, but I think it's fair to say they didn't want to be nuked, either.


Because their Emperor said to surrender, just as he earlier told them to fight to the death to defend their homeland.

If the Emporer had been assinated before he made his recorded surrender speech, then the war would've gone on with catastrophic results.If the Emperor had been assassinated before he made the speech, then isn't it feasible that someone else would have been appointed who'd have been willing to surrender?

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

Just about right they have actual video showing that one of officers in the Japanese military was going take control of the country after the atomic bombs where dropped on Japan he intended to continue the war without the empor and even attacked the palace in order to control the emporer. This shows me that the japanese people had every intention on doing what ever their emperor told them and that inculdes fighting to the death of every man women and child. I agree with with the quotes that states the evil doings of the Japanese during the ocupation of Mancuri I also think that the world has more important things to worry about then the two smallest atomic bombs ever used and the only two ever used in combat. We should be concerned with the atomic bombs that terrorist may posses even if you don't think they have them they do and it is a great concern we should all have.

If the Emperor had been assassinated before he made the speech, then isn't it feasible that someone else would have been appointed who'd have been willing to surrender?Doubtful, in a time of war, the generals would take over and they wanted the war to go on. That is why the Emperor was going to be assassinated.

He would've become a martyr and the rallying flag for all the Japanese people. thus the idea of a child with a bamboo pole facing down an armed soldier would be more of a reality.

One you may be able to argue was needed but two, both on population centres?

After Hiroshima the Japanese High Council (The six main leaders and the Emperor I'm not sure if that was what they called it) were 100% in favor of keeping up the war. Even after Nagasaki they were split even and only surrendered because the Emperro stepted in. After Nagasaki General Anami (the Jpanaese Army minister and member of the council) said, "...this bomb is not so deadly..." So that shows you even after Nagasaki some of them still wanted to fight.

one more thing. There was actually 17 captured Japanese troops after Okinawa out of a garrison of 115,00 men. Every one of the 17 men was badly hurt, so they didn't really surrender they just couldn't resist capture.

Without the Atom Bombs, the only other options were invasion or blockade and bombardment. Several generals were in support of invasion. However, with the invasion, estimates are that it would be around 1 MILLION US casualties, just to seize a THIRD of KYUSHU. Original estimates for Japanese aircraft to be used was around 1-3 thousand kamikaze aircraft. Guess what they found after the war was over? Over TEN THOUSAND kamikaze aircraft, just waiting for the invasion. We also found a lot of modified German jets, getting ready to be used. People were being taught to use ANYTHING against use. Axes, swords, bamboo sticks, explosives, anything! With blockade and bombardment, basically we destroy all transportation, and starve them out. The Soviets would have gone and invaded Hokkaido by that time, and we would have a second Germany. The Atom Bombs were the only choice.

As a University History student i have written 2 essays on this subject.
I like to view this issue in the shoes of the people who were behind the deployment of the A-bombs. The governments of the Allied powers.

The Manhattan Project was set up in the Quebec Conferance between PM Churchill, PM Mackenzie King, and Pres. Roosevelt. Churchill planned on having a bomb to drop on Berlin the second it was ready. Before the Bomb was ready, Roosevelt died. In his first week of office Truman called together the war cabinet. The war in Europe was already winding down and Victory was all but ensured. He asked General Marshal to prepare a report on the estimated US casualties in the pacific with the invasion of Japan. The report came back stating that they expected the loss of over 1 million american lives, the practical destruction of the Pacific Fleet and the loss of near 50% of the airforce. Truman ordered 1 million body bags for the military. After, Oppenhiemer came to Truman and explained that Roosevelt had a bomb that could end the war now. As the President of the United States his responsibility was to the American people, if one more american soldier died because Truman wouldn't use all at his disposal, he was not acting in the best intrest of the American people.

The outcome speaks for itself. The Japanese didnt even surrender after the first bomb.... IT TOOK 2 BOMBS days after each other. I dont know about the rest of you, but after the first i would be on the phone with Truman in minuites. and the war ended immediately after Nagasaki.

The US Army and various US police forces used these body bags ordered by Truman well into the 1970's and it is rumoured that many have been sold off in the last 20 yrs in surplus.

Do you know anything of the japanese culture? obviously not. There country is more important to them then there children, they would of died for it, hell, even when the bombs were dropped the military tried to kill the emporer to try and stop him declaring peace.


Yes, the japanese would of faught to the last child, it was there homeland, even most american civilians would fight to the death if they were invaded, and after that, a constant guerilla war lasting a LONG time, the nazis carried on there guerilla campign for 2 years, the japanese one could of lasted a VERY long time, being a constant drain on americas resources.

Damn straight we would.

So far, there have been people saying that the Japanese would fight to the death and those who think they wouldn't because everyone else wouldn't. The Japanese believed in honor, which they kinda lost with Pearl Harbor because, in Japanese culture, I believe you were supposed to warn your target before you attack. You're supposed to wake up your target and hand him his sword before you learn about body parts you never knew your opponent had. So, I guess they wanted to regain their honor they lost. Also, the emperor was scared of a war with America. He supposedly said something about "waking up the sleeping giant". Oh well. It's either few get killed by big explosion or many get killed by little explosions. The big explosion scares them. The little ones don't.

People also fail to view Pearl Harbour victims as innocent bystanders. What defines an innocent bystander.... to me it is a victim of an attack with out being involved n the conflict. although the soldiers, sailors, and airmen at Pearl Harbour were military, they were not at war, most of them were on shore leave. At least the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki knew there was a war on and it is not unlikely that the americans might bomb. The americans didn't even have an enemy.

I call the casualties at Pearl victims, because thats what they are... it wasnt war yet... it was as if the japanese snuck up and shot them in the back as they walked down the street.

Exactly. It was dishonorable in Japanese culture to just attack someone on their day or rest while they were still sleeping. You're supposed to wake the enemy up with anything BUT an attack.

First off it was the B-29 that was used against Japan. Second the weather precluded "precision" (precision bombing during WWII was within 100m )3rd the Japanese city were more "homogenous" so all cities were somewhat military.


Correction there were military targets located at or near both cities. They were and never have been legitimate military targets.
B52's could fly over Japan pretty much unmolested at altitude, the Japanese did not have the resources or equipment to intercept them. So presision bombing could have taken out the military targets. However the US were using smaller bombs and incenduaries, which although no good against hard military targets were very effective against the civilian buildings and infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, the same was going on in Europe (Dresden) but it was not an overarching policy as it was against the Japanese.
So I say again what did two do that one would not?

Also, the emperor was scared of a war with America. He supposedly said something about "waking up the sleeping giant".

That was Admiral Yamamoto, who planned the Pearl Harbor attack.

I don't know how to parse your post into smaller blocks of html quotes, so I will answer within your own post but with a different text color.

For your future reference, you can enclose the text you want in QUOTE /QUOTE with brackets. Also, on the reply screen, the last button on the right (looks like a word balloon) will enclose highlighted text in quotes. :)

Ok, getting down and dirty. Long post, gomen ne.

Not at all. What I am saying is that people can sit there and say they were tired of war, but that does NOT mean they would not have fought if war were brought to their doorstep. In no way is my argument invalidated.
No, it still does as your point was that our sources were not vaild as they were Japanese civilians who lived through the war, and by contrast, your sources, American service men who were fighting the Japanese military (the two were seperate, but more on that later). If because these civilians were speaking after the fact somehow invalidates their feelings and knowledge, it also invalidates your sources as well.

The American military fought the Imperial Japanese military, they did not ever step foot on the home islands so they never met the civilians. So I continue to take the Japanese who lived through that time as being a better source as to what they were feeling and experiancing than American military personel.

I base my argument on conversations with the men who were there on the ground. Fighting. Men who fought the Japanese and know what battle means. Are you?
On everyone. On American civilians who had to man the homefront, on the nisei (in the camps or on the front), on American military personel, on the Imperial Japanese military, on Japanese civilians, and a study of the writtings of the leaders on both sides.

And the fact that civilians committed suicide at the orders of the Army strengthens your point how? If anything it is an eloquent argument for me, not you. You say those civilians were tired of war and were not enamored with death, yet they committed suicide at the orders of the Army. As I'm sure you are aware, the Okinawan men were fighting while their women and children were jumping off cliffs and eating grenades. This is a PERFECT argument for how fanatical the Japanese Army was and how quickly Japanese civilians fell into lockstep with them when ordered.

Multiply Okinawa by a factor of ten, or maybe a hundred, and that is what the invasion of the Home Islands would be.
The ones who were forced we not ordered to, they were forced to. The Japanese were well aware of the terror this would cause the Americans. The native Okinawans disliked the Imperial Army almost as much as they dislike the Americans now. Recently, the museum at Okinawa finally started an exibit about the actions of the Imperial Army there, and the forcing of suicide. It was condemed by the usual wingnuts on the mainland, but the native Okinawans thought it was rather late.

Many did commit suicide on their own, but some were forced to as well.

That's great. Knowing what they felt, in retrospect, is good to know. What I am saying, and have been saying repeatedly, is that such feelings are ultimately divorced from what actually happened. From what WOULD have happened. If you ask any American soldier how sick he was of war by that time I'm sure he'd tell you exactly what the Japanese did. That he was heartily tired of war and wanted it to end. But he fought. And if we had invaded the Home Islands, the Japanese would've fought too, if for no other reason than that the Japanese Army would not have let them NOT fight. I don't think that the JA would've needed to convince them, though.
We have never said that they would not have fought. I know damn well that the majority would have fought, and would have done so with no equipment or even hope.

I never said they were dovoted to dying. I said they were fanatical in their willingness to fight to the death. Those are two very different things. That they fought to the death for a lost cause shows that their culture and their training of self-sacrifice was more powerful than their instinct for self-preservation. The Japanese would have fought in the hundreds of thousands if the US had invaded the Home Islands. There is absolutely no doubt about it, no matter how many people say they were tired of war. Of course they were tired of war. That makes no difference when war shows up, whether you're tired of it or not.
I'll try this once more, yes, they would have fought. We know this, though how many and how enthusiastically is really up in the air. I have never said otherwise and having seen some of the museums in Japan, I know damn well what was being led up to. There is no doubt that the Japanese islands would have been massively depopulated should the US had to have invaded, which is why, ultimately, I agree with the decision to drop the bombs.

What I HAVE been arguing with you and trying to explain in these threads is that the very narrow view of the Japanese as being something of a bee hive, who did anything the emperor commanded because they thought he was a god, and who were not afraid to die due to Bushido, are false at worst, or just increadibly narrow at best; and filled with the same propaganda used against the Japanese during WWII. The culture is very complex and the reasons for what they did also complex. But these threads have a tendancy to generate aguments that the bombs should have been dropped because the Japanese would have fought to the last child, because the emperor commanded it and he was a god to them.

Which is why I usually respond with (as I will now) PLEASE study Japanese culture so you can see that it wasn't anywhere nearly as simple as that.

They would have fought, but NOT from the reasons you have assigned to them.

I'd be willing to bet that they'd sanitize the Rape of Nanking, though...
No, they don't. Most Japanese who have been to college know damn well what they did and what happened. They have no illusions about it. It's only the extream right wing that tries to deny what happened.

And again, THAT problem/issue is also very complex.

Exactly. It was dishonorable in Japanese culture to just attack someone on their day or rest while they were still sleeping. You're supposed to wake the enemy up with anything BUT an attack.
Well, the decleration of was was supposed to have been delivered BEFORE (or during) the attack, not afterwards. But, thanks to some typical screw ups and someone forgetting the time difference, it didn't happen. Also, it is worth noting that in the western tradition, it is also dishonerable to use sneek attacks, doesn't mean that they don't happen.

the military tried to kill the emporer to try and stop him declaring peace.The military (actually a small faction within the military) did NOT try to kill the emperor. There was an attempt to stop the transmission of the decleration of surrender (and one put down by the military, on the orders of the Showa Emperor). At no time was the emperor himself threatened. Reasons being:

1. The person of the emperor is sacrocent.
2. Many in that particular faction of the military believed that the emperor was under the sway of his advisors in the palace and not aware of their (the faction's) will to fight to the end. They believed that in stopping this, they could release the emperor and he would validate their actions. This notion had happened a few times during the 1920's, 30's during the build up to the war. Those who attempted a coup were usually lightly punished and never actually condemed by the emperor (indeed, once they ploters were told, before being jailed, that the emperor had heard their pleas and understood the reason behind their actions).
3. Those who were a little more wordly were also well aware of the old Japanese tradition of controling the emperor, which is probably closer to what they had planned.

First off it was the B-29 that was used against Japan. Second the weather precluded "precision" (precision bombing during WWII was within 100m )3rd the Japanese city were more "homogenous" so all cities were somewhat military.
Yes what an error to make. But the point remians that at altitude the B-29s were very difficult for the Japanese to intercept. And 100m is pretty accurate, more so that a bloody nuke!
And it was not cloudy every day.
The reasons the bombs were used was to end the war quickly (not nessacarily to save lives, the war could have been fought longer, at range and by attrition) and to demonstrate to the russians the power of the bomb.
I don't question the use of the weapons too much, but still question the targets and number.
As to momogenous cities, well a port city has most military targets near the sea, I'm sure even US bombers could hit the sea!

As to momogenous cities, well a port city has most military targets near the sea, I'm sure even US bombers could hit the sea!
As to that, it should be noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had massive military facilities within the city itself (urban planning is NOT a Japanese strong point, and this REALLY has not changed). It was a legit target.

It should be noted that the facilities were so mixed up within the city, that the military had ordered a large amounts of houses pulled down to create firebreaks around these important facilities. The local junior high schools had been emptied out that day with the children reporting to work in the city's center just for that project.

It raised the body count amoung the children quite a bit.

And I am curious, how would YOU have ended the war, without causing more deaths?

I cannot find a way to do so.

As to that, it should be noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had massive military facilities within the city itself (urban planning is NOT a Japanese strong point, and this REALLY has not changed). It was a legit target.

It should be noted that the facilities were so mixed up within the city, that the military had ordered a large amounts of houses pulled down to create firebreaks around these important facilities. The local junior high schools had been emptied out that day with the children reporting to work in the city's center just for that project.

It raised the body count amoung the children quite a bit.

And I am curious, how would YOU have ended the war, without causing more deaths?

I cannot find a way to do so.
More deaths or more civilian deaths?
I think if you lived in a country that expereinced bombing of civilian targets and cities your attitude may be different. I'm sure the residents of Dresden, Hull, Cambridge, Berlin, London etc would argue that indiscriminate killing of civilians does nothing to bring a country to it's knees. To take Britian, it was these bombings that set the resolve of the people never to give in, to fight to the end. The threat before it happened was more damaging to moral than the reality.
I don't know how I would have done it. But as Japan had no oil, very little manufacturing capacity, was within easy range of B29s, had little or no air cover. They had no navy left to speak of. I sure other options were available.

More deaths or more civilian deaths?
I think if you lived in a country that expereinced bombing of civilian targets and cities your attitude may be different. I'm sure the residents of Dresden, Hull, Cambridge, Berlin, London etc would argue that indiscriminate killing of civilians does nothing to bring a country to it's knees. To take Britian, it was these bombings that set the resolve of the people never to give in, to fight to the end. The threat before it happened was more damaging to moral than the reality.
I don't know how I would have done it. But as Japan had no oil, very little manufacturing capacity, was within easy range of B29s, had little or no air cover. They had no navy left to speak of. I sure other options were available.
More deaths on both sides, Allied and Japanese.

And what options? I always hear about these options.

Starve them? Kills the weak, the sick, the children first. As soon as you declare a food fight, the last ones to actually start to stave are the military and the guys in charge. See Iraq under sanctions, and North Korea.

Invade? That's what we've been debating as of late and I stand by my notion that an invasion would have seriously depopulated the islands of Japan.

Not to mention having them split.

Bomb them off the map? You'd kill many more civilians that way.

So how?

No, I have seen the effects of both the atomic bombs and the regular that were used in Japan to devistating effect (first hand) and my position has not changed, I can't think of another way to have ended that war without causing even more pain and suffering, but it was a terrible thing to do. Should the US be proud of what happened? No. We should never be.

No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis. As the inscription says, we well never repeat the mistakes.

A good protion of this argument seems based upon theorizing the Jappanesse reaction to an invasion of the home islands. I am not a jappanophile so I can not make any informed statements on the national character of that nation at that time. I am a student of history so I can look at objective facts and events that occured. First the casualty rates on Okinawa and Iwo Jima definately indicate that an invasion of Jappan would be much more costly in human life than the nuclear bombing. Secondly it must be pointed out that neither atomic bomb was the most devistating air raid of that conflict. What finally convinces me that it was the right decision was that it happened twice. This means that after being attacked by an unbefore used weapon that destroyed an entire city the leadership of Jappan was not convinced that they should surrender. Further the lack of a surrender would (in the eyes of their leadership) not cause an uncontrollable amount of discontent. It was after the United States showed a willingness and ability to continue to use atomic bombs that surrender was acheived.
It has been said that we were also trying to intimidate the Soviets. Possibly so. If true than it is unfortunate for the millions who died in Eastern Europe who suffered under Stalin that we did not also have these WMDs to use on Germany. If this makes me a racist than I am a strange one as I am three quarters German.....


We didn't have the bombs ready before Germany surrendered.

Re-read I said:
"...we did not also have these WMDs to use on Germany."

More deaths on both sides, Allied and Japanese.

And what options? I always hear about these options.

Starve them? Kills the weak, the sick, the children first. As soon as you declare a food fight, the last ones to actually start to stave are the military and the guys in charge. See Iraq under sanctions, and North Korea.

Invade? That's what we've been debating as of late and I stand by my notion that an invasion would have seriously depopulated the islands of Japan.

Not to mention having them split.

Bomb them off the map? You'd kill many more civilians that way.

So how?

No, I have seen the effects of both the atomic bombs and the regular that were used in Japan to devistating effect (first hand) and my position has not changed, I can't think of another way to have ended that war without causing even more pain and suffering, but it was a terrible thing to do. Should the US be proud of what happened? No. We should never be.

No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis. As the inscription says, we well never repeat the mistakes.
I think the real moral question is was it ok to decide to kill so many civilians to prevent an equal or greater number of military deaths?
You say yes, for me it's an I don't know.

I think the real moral question is was it ok to decide to kill so many civilians to prevent an equal or greater number of military deaths?
You say yes, for me it's an I don't know.


And I think you really do miss the point that there would have been many, many more civilian deaths throughout the Japanese Islands if an invasion and more conventional bombing had taken place.

I was formerly a member of the US Navy. I have seen weapons in action. All war is barbaric. All war involves killing innocents. Anyone who says otherwise needs to spend a few years in the military just to see how ignorant they are. There is no such thing as a surgical strike with anything smaller than a .22 caliber pistol, and that can misfire too.

So what if Truman wanted to scare the Russians. I shudder to think what the world would look like now if the Soviet Union had been able to subjigate the Japanese Islands as they did Eastern Europe.

I believe our relationship with Japan and much of Asia would be very different now if we had not ended the war quickly, without completely devistating the entire Japanese country and culture.

2 planes, 2 bombs. Hundreds of planes, thousands of bombs. Same result. Only one is more memorable than the other since it is so very horrific. I hope we never have reason to do anything like it again.

I think the real moral question is was it ok to decide to kill so many civilians to prevent an equal or greater number of military deaths?
You say yes, for me it's an I don't know.
Please re-read what I said. I didn't say it was ok to kill so many civilians to prevent more military deaths, I said that I can not see another way to have ended that war without causing far more deaths, both military and civilian than were lost in the bombings themselves.

That is why I agree with the dropping of the bombs, but hate the fact that we had to do so.

Now, if someone can come up with a way to end that war without causing far more deaths... then I will change my tune.

Nervun,

The point is that they would've fought. The reasons are ultimately immaterial. The fact is that the bombs were dropped because they actually saved lives in the long run.

I could go through your post and clarify or correct some misinterpretations and misrepresentations, but it would be moot. My whole point was that a potential invasion would have been far more costly on both sides than dropping the bombs. And since we agree on that, there's no point in arguing it further.

Please re-read what I said. I didn't say it was ok to kill so many civilians to prevent more military deaths, I said that I can not see another way to have ended that war without causing far more deaths, both military and civilian than were lost in the bombings themselves.

That is why I agree with the dropping of the bombs, but hate the fact that we had to do so.

Now, if someone can come up with a way to end that war without causing far more deaths... then I will change my tune.

Maybe what we should've done is tell them that we were going to conquer the home islands (which, by that time, the Japanese would've known was a foregone conclusion) and let the Chinese govern them.

That might've made for a short war. **Wry laugh**

Yeah, but even that's not at all the same as what some people have been advancing, which is that Japan was supposedly populated by some strain of human being so dissimilar from the rest of us that they couldn't be counted on to respond like any other group of human beings - i.e. this BS about toddlers fighting to the death with daggers between their teeth to preserve the Emperor-God figure.

Give me a fucking break, guys. That was a load of old 'Yellow Peril' propaganda, and knowing that, it's pretty unbelievably rude to hear it bubbling up again. Next thing, someone's gonna talk in a heartfelt manner about how they "just didn't have the same innate human respect for life as we did", or somesuch nonsense.

Dobbsworld? Learn something about World War II and the Japanese Culture at the time before you spout out bullshit that has no basis in facts of the case.

The Atomic Bombs were the only option short of invasion. A blockade wouldn't work. Infact, it would've killed far more people than the bombs did if it was prolonged. An invasion would've killed millions of people and that was unacceptable. The bombs were, in reality, the only option to save JAPANESE, CHINESE, KOREAN, AND AMERICAN LIVES!

Read a damn book.

I agree but, looking at history as a whole, not on individual cases, large numbers of hitler youth units faught untill they were annilated.

On a whole, yes, i can say german children died fighting against both russian and allied soldiers.

I can also say a large majority of japanese children would of done the same , i , and many other countless people who have studied history, or teach it have concluded with the evidence and sources we have today.

100% Correct Rougu. Keep up the good work.

Fine. Go ahead and believe whatever suits you, then. I think you're all full of it, personally - I don't believe for a minute that any human population can be counted on to act as some super-unified meta-entity, like a hive of bees, for example, but if so much of your argument hinges on that supposition being true, then who am I to argue?

Enjoy.

Nice to see Dobbsworld ignoring historical facts that have proven that Japan would've fought to the last person standing.

I'm not surprised by this childish outburst.

Keep it up Dobbsworld. I guess you don't like history or facts.

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

Yea right, Russia lost 25 million in WWII. Stalin was a master of BS, those numbers have zero support.

Yea right, Russia lost 25 million in WWII. Stalin was a master of BS, those numbers have zero support.
Don't know about that. Here's some reading for you: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm

The four last paragraphs state the losses on both sides. It seems to me that "The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000." has at least some support.

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

Here are the facts..

the Japanese had suffered a
phenomenal 75% casualties with over 17,000 men killed or
wounded. (13-15] The Soviets reported 9,284 killed or
wounded at the battle's end.

Facing 30,000 Japanese soldiers.
Zhukov built his forces up to 35 infantry battalions and
over 57,000 men under rigorous security and deception
measures. [4-9]. He achieved a force ratio of 4:1 in tanks
and 2:1 in aircraft. [15-156]


Even with over whelming odds and far superior Equipment and supplies... the kill ratio was only 2 to 1.

I was just wondering how Japanese culture fit into this equation. The Japanese government and their culture had no decision on the deployment of Little Boy and Fat Man. The Bombs were dropped because we were at war. The Japanese hit Pearl Harbour with a sledgehammer of an attack. Americans died.... all of them Innocent Americans...
Thousands of Canadians died with the collapse of Hong Kong.... many after they were captured were brutally murdered by beheading.

In the end of the arguement it goes down to this... If you are the President of the United States (Not Japan) and you have a weapon that will end the war and save the lives of your people... What would you do?

The US and the Commonwealth did not start the war with Japan... We were attacked. We are fully in our right to defend ourselves by any means nessesary.

Statisticly, The A-bombs were not the most devestating. dead people are dead people, whether they are killed by one bomb from one plane, or if they are killed in a couple nights by thousands of bombs from thousands of planes. Just talk to the people of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, London, Liverpool, Tokyo, and numerous other cities that were massively bombed by "conventional" weapons.

I was just wondering how Japanese culture fit into this equation. The Japanese government and their culture had no decision on the deployment of Little Boy and Fat Man. The Bombs were dropped because we were at war. The Japanese hit Pearl Harbour with a sledgehammer of an attack. Americans died.... all of them Innocent Americans...
Thousands of Canadians died with the collapse of Hong Kong.... many after they were captured were brutally murdered by beheading.

In the end of the arguement it goes down to this... If you are the President of the United States (Not Japan) and you have a weapon that will end the war and save the lives of your people... What would you do?

The US and the Commonwealth did not start the war with Japan... We were attacked. We are fully in our right to defend ourselves by any means nessesary.

Statisticly, The A-bombs were not the most devestating. dead people are dead people, whether they are killed by one bomb from one plane, or if they are killed in a couple nights by thousands of bombs from thousands of planes. Just talk to the people of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, London, Liverpool, Tokyo, and numerous other cities that were massively bombed by "conventional" weapons.

Great points, people fighting for the homeland have a tendancy to fight harder. The Bombs were the best solution to end carnage.

Some Great Posts in an extremely interesting thread.

I Originally came accross this subject whilst studyng Social Psychology a number of years ago.
The Basis of that study was the Social Psychology of Japan and it's people.

My Conclusion then, as an 18 year old, was that the Decision to drop the bombs was correct
- I still believe that to be the case.

My Point
Whilst I believe that the correct decision was made 60 years ago and some educated posts here have strengthened that belief .......

...... I DON'T believe that the same Decision would be made today !!

OK, I'm drawing a theoretical parallel here because of a number of changes in the world in 60 years,
- not least military capabilities.

But,
Given the same goals and the same arguments as existed then .....
..... I believe that NO Modern Government would sanction the complete destruction of two cities despite the 'Math' that less people would die.
...... I don't really believe that the people posting here would sanction it either.

I'll finish by repeating that I DO believe that the correct decision WAS made "at That Time"
- But I would be interested to hear your opinions.

I agree, i would not have hesitated at that time in that situation.

But the situation has not repeated itself. we have not had an all out international war since the deployment of the nukes. so i think it depends on the strategic situation.

The US and the Commonwealth did not start the war with Japan... We were attacked. We are fully in our right to defend ourselves by any means nessesary.To argue that it's acceptable to defend yourself "by any means necessary" is a ridiculous assertion.

In that situation.... Come On

This war was about survival.
The US was attacked, South East Asia was under control of the Japanese.

Perhaps i should have been more clear that "In this situation" we needed to defend ourselves by any means nessesary.

What would have happened if the Japanese had a foot hold on North America? They attacked it once already. They were in Burma and the Austrasian islands. They had a good grab on China. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were a force hell bent on domination. And needed to be stopped in order to preseve freedom and peace.

Do you think the Japanese military would have hesitated on using the A-bomb in Pearl Harbour if they had it? I stongly doubt it
they used every resource at their disposal, battleships, torpeado bombers, Kamakazis, midget subs, etc .... Why would they not use it if they had it?

Lighthill']
...... I DON'T believe that the same Decision would be made today !!

OK, I'm drawing a theoretical parallel here because of a number of changes in the world in 60 years,
- not least military capabilities.

But,
Given the same goals and the same arguments as existed then .....
..... I believe that NO Modern Government would sanction the complete destruction of two cities despite the 'Math' that less people would die.
...... I don't really believe that the people posting here would sanction it either.

I'll finish by repeating that I DO believe that the correct decision WAS made "at That Time"
- But I would be interested to hear your opinions.are you drawing your theoretical Parallel on the fact that the bomb was dropped in WWII or are you assuming that the war ended without the Bombs being used?

The four last paragraphs state the losses on both sides. It seems to me that "The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000." has at least some support.

9,000 dead in a sneak attack? Interesting. I know Japan knew war with Russia was comming They didn't know the exact time or place. And let us rember Russian tactics of WWII.
What to do if you come across a minefeild. Send your troops over it.
"" machine gun post send your troops charging against it. (some have no weopons)
What to do if your troops run a way. shoot them. Reussia may have had relitivly light losses early on but that number was bound to rise once they got closser to Japan and an army who knew they were comming.
Nervun, while I question your thoughts about Japanese culture, I realise you know a hell of a lot more than I do so I'll just accept it. I won't on the other hand care if the rest of America or any other Allied country doesn't untill Japan apologizes for its actions.Unlike German civilians who didn't know about the Holocaust, (mostly because the didn't want to) Japanese civilians knew what was going on in China, and thought it was very admirable. Read Flyboys by James Bradley. One Newspaper had reports of a beheading contest between two Japanese officers, that reached over 100 heads. "How Heroric" That was what they called it.

Nervun, I could go through your post and clarify or correct some misinterpretations and misrepresentations, but it would be moot. My whole point was that a potential invasion would have been far more costly on both sides than dropping the bombs. And since we agree on that, there's no point in arguing it further.

Feel free to, that's what this board is here for after all.

Nervun, while I question your thoughts about Japanese culture, I realise you know a hell of a lot more than I do so I'll just accept it. I won't on the other hand care if the rest of America or any other Allied country doesn't untill Japan apologizes for its actions.Unlike German civilians who didn't know about the Holocaust, (mostly because the didn't want to) Japanese civilians knew what was going on in China, and thought it was very admirable. Read Flyboys by James Bradley. One Newspaper had reports of a beheading contest between two Japanese officers, that reached over 100 heads. "How Heroric" That was what they called it.
Um, I never said that Americans and other Allied nations need apologize for the bombs, I just said that it was a nessicary action, but one we shouldn't be proud of (kind of like, to my mind, being proud of amputating a limb. It needed to be done, but why be proud of it?).

And Japan has apologized, repeatedly, for what it has done. Also, please be aware that the citizens in Japan were kept very ignorant to the true scale of what was going on at that time. They might be slightly better informed to what was happening than Germans, but not the the extent that they are now.

9,000 dead in a sneak attack? Interesting. I know Japan knew war with Russia was comming They didn't know the exact time or place. And let us rember Russian tactics of WWII.
What to do if you come across a minefeild. Send your troops over it.
"" machine gun post send your troops charging against it. (some have no weopons)
What to do if your troops run a way. shoot them. Reussia may have had relitivly light losses early on but that number was bound to rise once they got closser to Japan and an army who knew they were comming.
Nervun, while I question your thoughts about Japanese culture, I realise you know a hell of a lot more than I do so I'll just accept it. I won't on the other hand care if the rest of America or any other Allied country doesn't untill Japan apologizes for its actions.Unlike German civilians who didn't know about the Holocaust, (mostly because the didn't want to) Japanese civilians knew what was going on in China, and thought it was very admirable. Read Flyboys by James Bradley. One Newspaper had reports of a beheading contest between two Japanese officers, that reached over 100 heads. "How Heroric" That was what they called it.

You don't need to lecture me. You were talking about the Manchurian offensive, I just brought to your attention a source which would let to believe 'those numbers' have more than zero support. Somebody actually bothered to study and support TG's numbers. (not actually a million Japs, but less than 9000 Russians)
I agree with Stalins number policy? No. Just check my location, and I think we'll agree.

Okay I believe that you make an arguement, albeit a weak one for the 1st atomic bomb. But there is no doubt in my mind that the US committed a war crime when they dropped the 2nd one. The problem with saying that the bombs were justified are many.
1. They did not specifically target military or industrial means. The purpose of the bombs were terror. To scare the population into surrendering. They killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
2. Why target a city? There are many who believe that because of the awesome nature of the bomb they could've forced the Japanese to surrender by dropping it on an uninhabited peace of land to show them that we had that weapon. While based on historical evidence, it's doubtfull that would've been enough to force them to surrender, it at least should've been attempted.
3. Why wait only 3 days after Hiroshima to drop the 2nd one? In 3 days the Japanese had a city wiped out and the Russians joined the war. The US did not give them time to make sense of it, before they dropped the 2nd one. If the US had waited longer the Japanese may of surrendered before them.
4. To say that the Japanese or other states would've used it doesn't make our action right.
While I believe the the bomb shouldn't have been used, I don't really know if it "saved" more lives or not because we can only guess what would've happen if they hadn't been dropped. I just refuse believe that the bomb was the best option to end the war. And there is evidence to suggest that because of the lines being drawn between the Soviet Union and America at that time that the bomb was dropped in order to itmediate Russia.

*sighs* Ok, here we go again.

1. They did not specifically target military or industrial means. The purpose of the bombs were terror. To scare the population into surrendering. They killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
Well, one, you don't specifically target an atomic bomb, it isn't a persision bomb like we have now. Two, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major industrial cities with large military complexes and military facilities. It should ALSO be noted (again) that Japanese cities do not have seperate districts for things like western cities. There just isn't room. Think of some modern day bases where a city has grown around and encompased a base, that was the situation in both cities at the time. Both cities were an impossible mix of civilian and military targets that even today's military would have a hard time hitting JUST the military targets.

2. Why target a city? There are many who believe that because of the awesome nature of the bomb they could've forced the Japanese to surrender by dropping it on an uninhabited peace of land to show them that we had that weapon. While based on historical evidence, it's doubtfull that would've been enough to force them to surrender, it at least should've been attempted.
Well, one, we only had three bombs. One was detinated at Trinity, New Mexico, the other two were Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If we detonated one to show it off and it didn't work, then what? Two, there was the aspect of how would you accomplish this? Ask the emperor to look out his window at a certian time and see the bright light? Also, a flatened forest is not as awe inspering as a city obilterated in an instant.

As for why those cities, the Peace Museum at Hiroshima (and their website) has an exsaustive display regarding that.

3. Why wait only 3 days after Hiroshima to drop the 2nd one? In 3 days the Japanese had a city wiped out and the Russians joined the war. The US did not give them time to make sense of it, before they dropped the 2nd one. If the US had waited longer the Japanese may of surrendered before them.
A couple of reasons actually, we were reading their communications and knew that the high command was trying to explain away the bomb as not being as powerful (they had a tight lock over Hiroshima). They also thought that the US couldn't have had more than one. A second detonation proved that we did, and made Truman's bluff that not only did we have more, but we would go down Japan removing its cities seem all the more crediable.

I just refuse believe that the bomb was the best option to end the war. And there is evidence to suggest that because of the lines being drawn between the Soviet Union and America at that time that the bomb was dropped in order to itmediate Russia.
Then what option would you use?

Well, my grandfather commanded the 99th Assault Artillery Regiment in the Manchurian offensive, and they cut up entire divisions without casualties. A million-strong Japanese army, annihilated in two weeks by a vastly superior mobile force. The number of Russian dead did not exceed 9,000.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?

On August 9th, when the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese had 7,000,000 under arms in Asia, as compared to the western allies 1.8 million. The japanese also had about twice the number of aircraft, and far more tanks.

The was a natural concern that this would constitute a tough nut to crack, and provide significant reserves for the defense of the home islands. The Manchurian offensive was barely underway when the second bomb was dropped. Naturally there was some concern at that time about Japan's ability to remain in the fight.



And don't forget, the

And don't forget, the

The what? And would everybody please stop quoting Tactical Grace? I think thats been done half a dozen tiems now for just one post. Wait untill there is a new post to quote. Finally would new commers to this thread read everthing or at least most of it so they stop saying things that have already been said.

In that situation.... Come On

This war was about survival.
The US was attacked, South East Asia was under control of the Japanese.

Perhaps i should have been more clear that "In this situation" we needed to defend ourselves by any means nessesary. Oh, I see. Perhaps. Let's see...


What would have happened if the Japanese had a foot hold on North America? They attacked it once already. They were in Burma and the Austrasian islands. They had a good grab on China. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were a force hell bent on domination. And needed to be stopped in order to preseve freedom and peace.Agreed, they should be stopped. But the question is, was it necessary to use so much force to stop them? From what I know of, and what I've heard in this thread, yes. But, if the questions that I posed were answered, certain answers could change my opinion on that.


Do you think the Japanese military would have hesitated on using the A-bomb in Pearl Harbour if they had it? I stongly doubt it
they used every resource at their disposal, battleships, torpeado bombers, Kamakazis, midget subs, etc .... Why would they not use it if they had it?Isn't the point of this war, or any war, that one side is supposed to be better than the other? Now, I agree that Japan would have used the bomb. But if we're supposed to be better than them, there has to be some other reason to use it other than that Japan would have done the same thing. Otherwise we're no better than they are.

Another point I am going to make is that Japan, on August 10, 1945, in Korea, had successfully tested an Atomic Dirty Bomb. Guess when it was going to be used. As soon as an invasion fleet got next to Japan. They were waiting to use it, but never got the chance. Now think if we didn't use the A-Bomb, it would have been used on us.

I think you missed the point before.

The US Government expected to loose 1 million American soldiers, sailors and airmen in a "conventional" war with Japan. The Deployment of the A-bomb was to end the war.

The point of this war was the defense against aggressors, not to flex their might to be "Better". The Americans and the Commonwealth did not ask for a war. My Grandfather did not ask the Germans to start shit in Europe so he could spent the first 4 years of his marrage in the back of a bomber defending the world from tyranny and oppression, he volunteered because it was the right thing to do. Those soldiers, sailors and airmen at Pearl Harbour did not ask for the japanese to attack... they didnt even know they were coming or even fighting. WW2 isnt like modern wars where there is question about why we fought, we were attacked.

This war was about ending the fighting... although how ironic it may sound, the allies fought for peace.
Anything to end the war was fully supported. The A-bomb deployment, in my opinion, was just a very efficient and resourceful air raid, and should not command as much debate or attention as any other successful air raid.

Agreed, they should be stopped. But the question is, was it necessary to use so much force to stop them? From what I know of, and what I've heard in this thread, yes. But, if the questions that I posed were answered, certain answers could change my opinion on that.

Yes it was neecesary. If you don't use everything you have in a total war many people die and you lose oyu country.In a fire fight their is no time to sit down and try to make them see things your way. That is what happened before the war, and it obviusly didn't go to well.The invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people and that is more then the bombs did kill so it saved lives. WE DIDN"T START THE WAR!!! I think people tend to forget that.
So even if it only saved American lives I'd still be for the bomb because this was a war we didn't want. This was Japan's war of imperialism, not ours.

Isn't the point of this war, or any war, that one side is supposed to be better than the other? Now, I agree that Japan would have used the bomb. But if we're supposed to be better than them, there has to be some other reason to use it other than that Japan would have done the same thing. Otherwise we're no better than they are.

We are better then them! Do look at a map! Do you see American Germany, or Japan, alongside British Germany and Japan? No because not only did we give them a democracy we rebuilt their country and gave them everything they have today. (or at least we gave them that oppertunity) Why are you complaining about the deaths of 160,000-250,000 people in a war that killed 55 million? I know each human life is precius but these people may have been killed with a new type of weopon but death is death no matter what kills you.

Yes it was neecesary. If you don't use everything you have in a total war many people die and you lose oyu country.In a fire fight their is no time to sit down and try to make them see things your way. That is what happened before the war, and it obviusly didn't go to well.The invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people and that is more then the bombs did kill so it saved lives. WE DIDN"T START THE WAR!!! I think people tend to forget that.
So even if it only saved American lives I'd still be for the bomb because this was a war we didn't want. This was Japan's war of imperialism, not ours.



We are better then them! Do look at a map! Do you see American Germany, or Japan, alongside British Germany and Japan? No because not only did we give them a democracy we rebuilt their country and gave them everything they have today. (or at least we gave them that oppertunity) Why are you complaining about the deaths of 160,000-250,000 people in a war that killed 55 million? I know each human life is precius but these people may have been killed with a new type of weopon but death is death no matter what kills you.
A couple of points here. no the US did not start the war but they were well aware that thier policies against the Japanese were going to be unpoplular to say the leaset. So yest the US did not start it just as France did not start the war with Germany, but as with Franch the actions of the US made it easier for the military of thier enemies to justify war.

160-250,000 at the time of detonation, many more since.

There was also a pont made about Japan having a dirty bomb that was to be used against any invading military. Subtle difference, city full of people, invasion force....

For me it's not just the fact it was an A bomb, the bombing of Dresden was equally questionable. About both I am undecided.

We are better then them! Do look at a map! Do you see American Germany, or Japan, alongside British Germany and Japan? No because not only did we give them a democracy we rebuilt their country and gave them everything they have today. .
No but I did see the number of US 'owned' terretories increase greatly after WWII.

I think you missed the point before.

The US Government expected to loose 1 million American soldiers, sailors and airmen in a "conventional" war with Japan. The Deployment of the A-bomb was to end the war.Yes, except for the fact that I've seen no government report that takes in the strength of the Soviets, or their willingness to invade Japan. The numbers could potentially be much different.


The point of this war was the defense against aggressors, not to flex their might to be "Better". The Americans and the Commonwealth did not ask for a war. My Grandfather did not ask the Germans to start shit in Europe so he could spent the first 4 years of his marrage in the back of a bomber defending the world from tyranny and oppression, he volunteered because it was the right thing to do. Those soldiers, sailors and airmen at Pearl Harbour did not ask for the japanese to attack... they didnt even know they were coming or even fighting. WW2 isnt like modern wars where there is question about why we fought, we were attacked.I'm not disputing this. What I was disputing was your assertion that we were justified in using the A-bombs because they'd have done the same thing. Now, the A-bomb may have been justified, and hell, it probably was, but the fact that Japan would have done the same thing isn't justification. It was that minor point in your post that I was disagreeing with, not necessarily the use of the bomb itself. As I said before, I'm undecided about it.


This war was about ending the fighting... although how ironic it may sound, the allies fought for peace.
Anything to end the war was fully supported. The A-bomb deployment, in my opinion, was just a very efficient and resourceful air raid, and should not command as much debate or attention as any other successful air raid.I disagree, any air raid that kills people indiscriminately needs more justification than an air raid that only affects military targets.

Yes it was neecesary. If you don't use everything you have in a total war many people die and you lose oyu country.In a fire fight their is no time to sit down and try to make them see things your way. That is what happened before the war, and it obviusly didn't go to well.The invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people and that is more then the bombs did kill so it saved lives. WE DIDN"T START THE WAR!!! I think people tend to forget that.I know that we didn't start the war, but simply because we were attacked doesn't mean we necessarily have the right to use any amount of force we want.
I will try to propose a hypothetical situation. Say someone walks up to you and smacks you, and then runs into a crowd of people. You'd better have a damn good reason for machine gunning that crowd of people in order to stop that person. Simply because you were smacked isn't in and of itself a good reason. It can be part of a list of reasons, certainly, but not the only one.


So even if it only saved American lives I'd still be for the bomb because this was a war we didn't want. This was Japan's war of imperialism, not ours.I'm not disagreeing with that. But my point is that if the Soviets had handled the invasion, then American lives wouldn't be in danger.


We are better then them! Do look at a map! Do you see American Germany, or Japan, alongside British Germany and Japan? No because not only did we give them a democracy we rebuilt their country and gave them everything they have today. (or at least we gave them that oppertunity) Why are you complaining about the deaths of 160,000-250,000 people in a war that killed 55 million? I know each human life is precius but these people may have been killed with a new type of weopon but death is death no matter what kills you.I agree. The reason that I agree is that if the use of the weapon was justified, then it was justified for many reasons. I was arguing against the concept that it was justified simply because they'd have done the same thing. If that was the main reason we did it then we aren't better than them.
I would also like to point out that the Marshall Plan (the plan to rebuild Germany and Japan) was done as much for the benefit of the Allies (so there'd be no chance for another Hitler to arise) as it was for Germany and Japan themselves.

Yes, except for the fact that I've seen no government report that takes in the strength of the Soviets, or their willingness to invade Japan. The numbers could potentially be much different.

I'm not disputing this. What I was disputing was your assertion that we were justified in using the A-bombs because they'd have done the same thing. Now, the A-bomb may have been justified, and hell, it probably was, but the fact that Japan would have done the same thing isn't justification. It was that minor point in your post that I was disagreeing with, not necessarily the use of the bomb itself. As I said before, I'm undecided about it.

I disagree, any air raid that kills people indiscriminately needs more justification than an air raid that only affects military targets.

The purpose of those air raids was to destroy/hinder Japanese capacity to make war. They succeeded.

The purpose of those air raids was to destroy/hinder Japanese capacity to make war. They succeeded.
There are other ways of destroying/hindering Japanese capacity to make war than that. For that method to be used, there needs to me more justification than that.

The what? And would everybody please stop quoting Tactical Grace? I think thats been done half a dozen tiems now for just one post. Wait untill there is a new post to quote. Finally would new commers to this thread read everthing or at least most of it so they stop saying things that have already been said.

I got cut off. I think I was going to point out that no-one knew hoe extensive the USSR contribution would be.

Anyway just look at the dates of the Manchurian offensive. It can't have figured that large in the calculations to drop the bomb.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But my point is that if the Soviets had handled the invasion, then American lives wouldn't be in danger.

Yep, and then Japan would have been under the control of the Soviet Union and we all know how they just loved to return the terroritory that they took. Of course it could have been worse then that, the Soviet Union could have taken the North of Japan and the Allies the South. Thus creating another place for the Cold War to turn hot, and who is to say that the two Japans would have reunited at the end of the Cold War.

It is simple

It was our lives or theirs
We could conventionally pin point every military target.... but it would involve turning around on bomb runs, flying through flak and fighters, and loosing more american/commonwealth lives in the process. The casualty reports for Europe and the reports on the Doolittle raid show that bombers had no time to pin point targets. As long as the target was hit it was enough.
if they could pin point targets.... why would the 8th Air Force use hundreds of planes on air raids carrying thousands of bombs.

If there is a safer method of destroying industry and long range military targets i would like to hear it.

But i think some people fail to understand that only President Truman had to justify the deployment of the atomic bombs.
So put yourself in his shoes when deciding if they are justified.

In April 1945 he inherited a war from Roosevelt, that the japanese started in a sneak attack. Your Generals tell you that the pacific war will cost the lives of 1 million Americans and seriously depleat resources. Your allies are still fighting in Europe, The war there is near the end, but help in the pacific won't be coming soon.
The Battle of Okinawa claims the lives of 7000 Americans and leaves 32,000 wounded by the end of June 1945.
In conferance with the British on July 4th, the British agree with Truman that the bomb be deployed when its ready.
On July 13th 1945, the first successful test of a plutonium based bomb was performed, after some further tests, President Truman was informed that the A-bomb was ready.
July 26th the Japanese gov't reject the terms of the Potsdam Conferance.
Crews were trained and on August 6th Hiroshima was hit
August 8th the Soviets Declared War
August 9th Nagasaki was hit
August 10th Hirohito tells his gov't that the Potsdam terms must be met, Truman contacted
August 14th, Truman recieved the formal acceptance of the terms.

This is how it would look to Truman:
it took 2 months and 39,000 casualties to take Okinawa
It took 5 days and no casualties to get a final surrender after the use of the Atomic bomb.

8 days and no casualties if you want to count from Hiroshima

There are other ways of destroying/hindering Japanese capacity to make war than that. For that method to be used, there needs to me more justification than that.

No you don't. That is the proper definition of an air raid. It was done successfully on military targets no less.

Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets in that they had army barracks and industry geared to the war against the Allies.

There are other ways of destroying/hindering Japanese capacity to make war than that. For that method to be used, there needs to me more justification than that.

Umm...no. There doesn't. We were at war. We firebombed them to shorten the war by reducing their infrastructure and ability to fight.

That's the point of war. To win.

Especially this war
It was for the survival of a free society

Exactly. Keep in mind that WWII didn't take place in the jet age. There were no accurate missiles available. You had to bomb entire cities just to hit the target. What had to be done was what had to be done. The purpose of the bombings of cities was to not only destroy cities, it was to destroy the enemy's morale. Now, an invasion would have pissed off the Japanese. These aren't Americans or even Germans. These are people raised to fight to the death for their nation no matter what. It has been that way for centuries. They were training women to fight with spears. Don't believe they wouldn't surrender? If they wouldn't fight to the last man, then why the Kamakazes? Why train pilots to kill themselves just to kill the enemy if you didn't want to fight to the death. If the Nazis could create such a huge cult following in less than a decade, why not the same with the Japanese and the centuries they had until WWII? You can't expect the enemy to be exactly like you. That's why terrorists behead and blow up civilians just to make some political points, yet we wouldn't. Plus, the ariel bombings were losing their sting. The enemy was producing better weapons than you just to kill you. They were preparing bombs that would spread disease on one of your cities. The enemy is barbaric enough to shoot unarmed civillians and pow's just for not being Japanese. You now have a weapon that would prevent the enemy from spreading some of the deadliest diseases known to man in your nation. You have a weapon that, while giving the survivors painful cancers, is actually more humane than the alternatives. You have a weapon that would end the costliest war in terms of human suffering in history. Your choices are:
A. Surrender to a nation that punishes everyone else through torture, slave labor, and massicre.
B. Invade a nation whose people would fight to the death.
C. Use the new weapon. All you know is that it makes a big explosion and will bring the enemy to its knees. That's all you know about it. No one at the time knows anything about nuclear winter or even the connection between radiation and the weapon.
D. Let the reds handle it and have a new enemy after the war is over. You hate the reds. You know that once the war is over, you and the reds are going to be mortal enemies. The last thing you need is more reds.

I've only read the first and last page so sorry if I'm reiterating what was said in the middle. I'm pro-bomb, but for the sake of discussion, I'll throw out some facts.

Japan was ready to surrender. We wanted an 'unconditional' surrender and that entailed them losing their Emperor. The Emperor was considered a God to them, so obviously they didn't want to give him up.

We turned down their surrenders and bombed them. Then AFTER we bombed them we let them keep their Emperor. People say that the point of war is to win, but we already had.

People say that many Japanese and American lives were saved by dropping the bomb, whilst hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in it. If we would have just let them surrender, it would have been 0.

The 'military depot' that was in Hiroshima is also used as justification for the bomb.

This was hardly the case. In reality it was no more important than any of the small depots we have throughout our small towns in the US. Their navy and air force were exhausted by this point in the war, as were the supplies from this depot.

The bombs are in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. Killing of civilians is a war crime. Too bad the winners decide who the criminals are.

I'm actually an avid pro-Bomb person. My father is in the military and I even wrote a pro-Bomb essay last year. Just wanted to throw out facts since 3/4 of these posts are 'we wanted to win so we bombed them'. Can you be more ignorant?

We were desperate. beggars can't be choosers. America didn't want WWII to have a part 2, so we did it our way. If Europe treated Germany the way the Americans wanted the Germans to be treated instead of punishing the people like what happened, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. He rose to power because Germany went third world due to their punishments. If the Europeans listened to Wilson instead of using the Euro way(at the time), Germany would have had no reason to let Hitler rise to power. Would you want that to happen to Japan?

Killing civilians is a crime today but back then the only war crime wsa killing inocent people face to face knowing they don't have to die. We bombed them the only way we could, with out any precision.
Just a military depot? It was picked because it was a major millitary base and industrial city.

Hiroshima was a major military staging area. There is a reason that it was first on the list of potential targets.

I'm going to be bringing up the point on "group think" again. Condensed story of Japan to follow:
In Japan's history, there was in the 1800's ish a large battle between foreigners and Japan, the Jpanese had a Buddhist priest whose name I've forgotten. This priest prrayed for a storm, to help his country win the war. A giant storm came, which the Japanese called "KamiKaze", meaning "God's storm" it won the battle of that particular time, and the religion along with the legend was passed down for another 200 years.
Now you go to Japan during the war. The emperor wanted to expand his property, and to rally the people, told them god was on their side. He named the Fighter pilots "kamikaze" to remind the people of the victory 200 years earlier. The people not only believed they would win the war, but by the time America joined had no other choice but to win or die, because of the faith put in them by their comrades.

Story number 2:
Again I've forgotten my dates and names, but forgive me or help me out if you will. During Japan's fuedal era, The emperor at a certain time got tired of trying to keep up with taxes and problem cities. He grouped families into groups of five, and made whatever happened to one in the group happen to all. IE: someone in a family steals something, one member from each family in the group has to have their hand chopped off. One family does well with crops, the whole group gets rewarded. This started the feeling of group responsibility, and made it easier on the courts of the time because the families would punish their own kind or encourage their own kind, and the government did not have to get involved. Even thoguh the practice does not exist today, the community feeling in the time of the WWII still did (today, because of rapid expansion and appartment complexes, the feeling in the big cities is almost non-existent)

Nervun had great points.

Dobbsworld needs to pay attention to what he says, because I lived in Japan, and have Japanese family, there really is a great pressure to do as others expect you to do, and in this case, they would fight out of fear of dishonor. I know this is a difficult concept, but when you live there, even for me as an American, I constantly knew I must please the people living on the same street as me, to make them look good.

My grandma saw the bomb drop, saw as people ran down the street jumping into the boiling water and dying, saw as their skin melted off their bodies.
She ran to the mountains; and when the Americans tried to feed them gum and PB + J sandwiches, her teacher threw them in the trash can expecting them to be a bomb.
The Japanese had been so indoctrinated that we were the enemy, only out to kill them, kinda like what the American newspapers are doing to us with Iraqi people right now. Because of the propeganda, there are Americans who want to kill innocent people just because they "deserve it". In Japan it was the same way. I bring this up because I beleive everyone here at least knows of one peroson like that, so you can understand the sort of "group think" quality a little better.
Since, the japanese felt there was no choice but to continue the war until they could no longer physically fight, since their leader, who they love with a crazy passion, told them to, I believe the bomb was the best decision. The war would not have ended eaasily otherwise, nad in the end saved lives. My grandmother, who was there at the age of 13, believes this.

I still think that Truman was being lienient

I would have used the second bomb on Tokyo.

The war is only won when the fighting is over. The Japanese were willing to stop fighting the Americans in June of 1945, but that was it. They still wanted to continue in China, Burma, and throughout South East Asia, and keep the territories they already invaded. Not exactly a "surrender".
The brutality that the Japanese Army used in these invaded regions was extensive, beheaded POW's, mass rapings, and complete destruction of towns and villages. The needed to be stopped, not just from fighting the Americans, but stopped from fighting in general.

And the debate over the size of the "military depot".... well it doenst exist any more and i have never seen it so i can not comment on it. I have read the speeches by the American government stating that Hiroshima was a quality military target. and the Japanese denial of military industry.... so i dont know who to believe.

Mbaya,
Dont even bring the Geneva Convention into this matter.
The Japanese were in serious violation of the 2nd Hague Convention signed July 1899 Chapter 2 Articles 4-7, 14-19(POW Articles), all of Chapter 3(treatment of enemy sick and wounded), Section 2 articles 22-28 (Means of Bombardment seiges and attack on the enemy), Section 3 articles 43-56 (occupied territory articles).... and the list goes on.
They violated the entire 3rd Hague Convention (1910) with the Attack on Pearl Harbour without opening hostilities politcally.
The violation of the 1864 Geneva Convention (known as the Red Cross Convention) concerning the treatment of enemy wounded.
The 1929 Geneva Convention in relation to the treatment of POWs
And i can probably find more if you give me a couple days to read though all of the conventions.... but i think these are sufficient.

The 4th Geneva Convention signed in August 12 1949 is the convention relative to the protection of civilians in the time of war..... 1949, it was drafted after the end of the second world war.
With the exception of the Hague Conventions regarding Poisonious Gasses and Asfixiating material, The first Weapons of Mass Destruction Bill was created in 1972 and entered into force March 1975 with majority of the bill concerned with the production and stockpiling of Biological and Toxic weapons

Yep. You can't condemn things properly without answering one simple question: Why? Why are you condemning it? Why was it done in the first place? Why wasn't it not done? One little word could make a difference. One W above the other 4. Why>Who, what, where, and when.

Tokyo was already bombed over by the B-29s. No use in using the 2nd bomb there.

Plus, you can't have a surrender when you kill the only one who can make the surrender happen.

Defenders of the US action counter that the bomb actually
saved lives: It ended the war sooner and obviated the need for a
land invasion. Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count,
however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to
political agendas than to objective projections.{5}


5. In June and July 1945, Joint Chiefs of Staff committees predicted
that between 20,000 and 46,000 Americans would die in the one or two
invasions for which they had drawn contingency plans. While still in
office, President Truman usually placed the number at about a quarter
of a million, but by 1955 had doubled it to half a million. Winston
Churchill said the attacks had spared well over 1.2 million Allies.
(Barton Bernstein, "The Myth of Lives Saved by A-bombs," Los Angeles
Times, July 28, 1985, IV, p.1; Barton Bernstein, "Stimson, Conant, and
Their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," Diplomatic
History, Winter 1993, p.48.)





Whether those that committed crimes against humanity by bombing civilians
should be punished is one thing,
the fact that it just should never, ever be done again is what we have today.
We should be leaders and lead the way of disarming our own nukes, first.

I agree with the last premise
Atomic warfare has gone beyond the means of implimentation
modern ICBM nukes are in the ranges of hundreds if not thousands of times more powerful then the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Modren Nukes are mostly for intimidation now, there is no need to have a stockpile that can blow up the world 4 times.... all you need is to do it once.

Little Boy and Fat Man were used in a war for survival, With atomic weaponry of today... there would be no survival

I think it was Winston Churchill (please correct me if i have the wrong person) that said "World War 4 will be fought with sticks and rocks"

That sticks and rocks thing might mean politics ala "sticks and stones might break my bones, but words can never hurt me". Anyway, it can't be a war crime if it wasn't a war crime.

Rofl, I'm not saying that the Japanese followed the Geneva Convention. You use their violations as a justification? Some of you need to research at least a little before you form your opinions. It's sad really. Come back when you're intelligent.

Rofl, I'm not saying that the Japanese followed the Geneva Convention. You use their violations as a justification? Some of you need to research at least a little before you form your opinions. It's sad really. Come back when you're intelligent.

So what is your view of the use of the bomb? Was it the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.

Your answer and explaination will help me decide just precisely where you are going with this.

If you read the whole thread you would have seen that my opinions on the actual deployment of the A-bombs were very well and clear a few pages back.
as for intellegence maybe you can look up the dates and actual conventions on the subject of civilian casualties in war. the limit of discussion of civilian casualties that i have found in the pre WW2 declarations was in a "occupied territory" like in Section 3, Articles 42 - 56 in the 2nd Hague Convention of September 1900.

The Civilian Declaration of the Geneva Convention was created August 12th 1949, post WW2 after the powers saw how the civilians were left unprotected during the war. There is very little "Legal" violations of the deployment of the A-bomb during WW2 since a major convention considering non combatants was not created yet and any legal violations can most likely be dismissed though technicalities especially concerning the fact that a military target was destroyed regardless of the size or quality of target.

In regards to the quote, i thought that it was representing the destruction of infastructure in a World War 3, and that World war 4 would be like a stone age.

Defenders of the US action counter that the bomb actuallysaved lives: It ended the war sooner and obviated the need for a
land invasion. Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count,
however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to
political agendas than to objective projections.{5}

5. In June and July 1945, Joint Chiefs of Staff committees predicted
that between 20,000 and 46,000 Americans would die in the one or two
invasions for which they had drawn contingency plans. While still in
office, President Truman usually placed the number at about a quarter
of a million, but by 1955 had doubled it to half a million. Winston
Churchill said the attacks had spared well over 1.2 million Allies.
(Barton Bernstein, "The Myth of Lives Saved by A-bombs," Los Angeles
Times, July 28, 1985, IV, p.1; Barton Bernstein, "Stimson, Conant, and
Their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," Diplomatic
History, Winter 1993, p.48.)

Whether those that committed crimes against humanity by bombing civilians
should be punished is one thing,
the fact that it just should never, ever be done again is what we have today.
We should be leaders and lead the way of disarming our own nukes, first.

OK I have heard the idea that only 20,000-46,000 Americans would die. Lets say that again only 20,000-46,000 grieving mothers and fathers who's sons died in a war no one wanted. First even if you were right why would any leader want to invade with that type of losses? Second that is the Armies' casuallty estimates. Why does this matter? Because the Navy and the Army were fighting over how to end the war. The navy wanted a blockade and the Army wanted an invasion. So the Amry came up with a low casualty list. Second try learning about the bomb from less bias sources. Why do you think losses would be that low? There is absolutly nothing to support it. Japan was detirmed to fight to the last child (more or less) and they had no intention of surrenduring.

The argument that Japan had massive domestic reserves with which to wage a defensive war is rubbish. The Americans killed half the Japanese fighting strength in the Pacific Theatre, the Soviets finished off the rest.

What were they going to resist with? Bamboo poles?
Um, yes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-2005/news/story/334533p-285839c.html
"'If it was not for the atomic bomb, we [Japanese] were in such a mental state, we would have fought until the last person,' said West, who was taught as a little girl how to fight with a sharpened bamboo stick in the event of an invasion."

Even a coup was nearly staged to keep the nation fighting following Hirohito's announcement to his cabinet that he would surrender.

I think it was Winston Churchill (please correct me if i have the wrong person) that said "World War 4 will be fought with sticks and rocks"


It was Albert Einstein,
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

who also said:

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."



WW3, 4 items.
It is becoming more and more so that the cold war
is being recognized as WW3.
and alas, Bush's hunt for Osama,
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
I mean, his self-declared war on terrorism.
Sorry. You cannot declare war yourself.
You need the constitutionally required "declaration".
Nor can you set policy for 40 years. You're only
prez for 4_+4. Others can change it tomorow.

Don't worry. I rip on all president-aholes.

There is no justifiable position of support of the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor the use of Fire Bombs on Tokyo. This was the deliberate targeting of civilians. Why was the bomb drop on a civilian area rather then Yokosuka Naval Base? Every argument for the atomic bomb equally defends Japans actions "We had to use the Three Alls policy, China would not have surrendered without it!" its amazing that there is a textbook crisis in Japan, but the filth in American books is allowed without questioning.

There is no justifiable position of support of the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor the use of Fire Bombs on Tokyo. This was the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Incorrect. Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other jap cities that were bombed were, in fact, military targets.

Why was the bomb drop on a civilian area rather then Yokosuka Naval Base? Every argument for the atomic bomb equally defends Japans actions "We had to use the Three Alls policy, China would not have surrendered without it!" its amazing that there is a textbook crisis in Japan, but the filth in American books is allowed without questioning.

Read up on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tell me that they weren't legit military targets.

Because the Navy and the Army were fighting over how to end the war. The navy wanted a blockade and the Army wanted an invasion. So the Amry came up with a low casualty list. Second try learning about the bomb from less bias sources. Why do you think losses would be that low? There is absolutly nothing to support it. Japan was detirmed to fight to the last child (more or less) and they had no intention of surrenduring.



The army is a biased source?
I...guess... They were fighting among the different services over
what not to cut when the reason for our super-hyper-collosas military,
the USSR, imploded and we were pleading for the peace dividend.

Usually those military people are the experts on military matters.
I guess I'm just relying on their expertise.
I doubt they were rEALLY gung ho about invading.
Maybe just thought it was the best way to "get the job done".
Why do you think it would have been so high?


Japan had no intention of surrendering?
simply, not true.

I have heard that Japan was sending out feelers trying to determine
if peace was possible

Early in 1946, the Federal Council of Churches called the bombings "morally indefensible" because Japan had received no specific advancing warning. In July, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered "certainly prior to December 31, 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945...even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion [of Japan] had been planned or contemplated." http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=541

FCC above qualifies it on no advance warning.
I'd say us drooping to that level wiping out entire towns,
let alone ones that had not even real military targets.

[[
Then there's the museum labeling the two cities "military" targets or, fudging, "military industrial" targets. Neither city was targeted because of its military significance: they were simply among the few cities left in Japan that had not already been devastated by U.S. bombs and so could serve as ideal test sites for the new weapon.

In fact, the aiming points for the bombs were not military bases but the very center of each city, to maximize civilian casualties. In Nagasaki there were only scattered Japanese military casualties (along with a few American POWs), and the civilian toll in Hiroshima outnumbered military deaths by about 6-1, as planned. ]]

I've been to both cities and, while the museums do tend to stick
to the winner's narrative, the bomb for Hiroshima was aiming at a t-shaped
bridge.
(Even if we disagree PLEASE visit these sites
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html
Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html


Finally,
Even General Dwight D Eisenhower, later president of the US:
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

from this page on quotes on the bomb
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm




Please, please visit those sites above.
Or if you're really adventurous, Japan Travel Bureau's
airline tickets are 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper than every
other travel agency. peace, yo.

We're STILL arguing this one? My word, everyone is really stuborn this time around.

In Japan's history, there was in the 1800's ish a large battle between foreigners and Japan, the Jpanese had a Buddhist priest whose name I've forgotten. This priest prrayed for a storm, to help his country win the war. A giant storm came, which the Japanese called "KamiKaze", meaning "God's storm" it won the battle of that particular time, and the religion along with the legend was passed down for another 200 years.
Now you go to Japan during the war. The emperor wanted to expand his property, and to rally the people, told them god was on their side. He named the Fighter pilots "kamikaze" to remind the people of the victory 200 years earlier. The people not only believed they would win the war, but by the time America joined had no other choice but to win or die, because of the faith put in them by their comrades.
Uh, sort of, the battle was actually in 1281 and against the second invasion (the first having been turned back) of Japan by the Mongols under Kublai Khan. Kamikaze (which should be translated more as divine wind) is only used for that particular taifun (typhoon). In WWII, the units that Americans called kamikaze were actually called tokubetsu kougeki tai ( 特別攻撃隊 ) (or tokkoutai ( 特攻隊 ) for short), which translates into special attack units. The term kamikaze was applied by Americans because the units that came from the Imperial Japanese Navy were called shinpuu tokubetsu kougeki tai ( 神風特別攻撃隊 ), where shinpuu shares the same kanji as kamikaze ( 神風 ).

Oddly enough, a decendent of the samurai who was incharge of the defence of Kyushu was the one who thought of the tokkoutai, and it was the athority of his linage that helped make the notion popular.

Story number 2:
*snip*
I believe you mean some of the policies enacted under the Tokugawa goverment during the Edo Period which lasted from mid 1600's to mid 1800's.

Nervun had great points.
Thank you. :)

Japan had no intention of surrendering?
simply, not true.

I have heard that Japan was sending out feelers trying to determine
if peace was possible
In a way, but it should be noted, again, that the peace they wanted was under the condition that the Imperial House maintained all power it currently had. This was unacceptable (it would be as if we accepted Germany's surrender if we left Hitler in power).

I've been to both cities and, while the museums do tend to stick
to the winner's narrative, the bomb for Hiroshima was aiming at a t-shaped
bridge.
That's the first time I have ever heard someone state the peace museum sticks to the American side of events.

BTW, the T-shapped bridge was used as the target as it was a very reconizeable target even from the air, there was no worries that the bomber might not find the drop zone. As it was, the bomb DID miss the bridge by about 300 meters if memory serves.

Having been to the muesums, you then know that actually Hiroshima was a major military center, and that the decision to drop on THAT city (along with Nagasaki) was a rather complicated one, built upon being a military target, a semi-major city, a regional headquaters, and one that (we thought and were wrong about) did not hold any allied POWs.

As it was, Japan knew damn well it had been beaten in 1944, however, in an effort to preserve some of its territory, and (later) the Imperial Throne, it delayed and delayed, and delayed. Its peace feelers were never more than half hearted at best, and would demand things Japan knew the Allies would never accept.

I'm only going to say this one more time people. STOP PUTTING TODAY'S MORALS ON WWII. We fought they way we did because we had no choice. If we had faught the way some people wanted us to we would be goose-stepping to school or praying to the Emperor, depending on where you live. Eisenhower doesn't know what he's talking about for 2 reasons. One he didn't fight the Japanese and didn't know how they faught, or their mentallity, so he thought they would accept our terms. Second he thought the same was true for Germany in the winter of 1944, so he let his gaurd down and took 25,000 casualties in the Battle of the Bulge. The A-bomb was the only way to get Jpan to surrender without huge losses on both sides.
If people won't listen to reason give them a reason to listen.