NationStates Jolt Archive

I would please like a rational, reasonable discussion about the rights and wrongs of the use of the A-bomb in World War Two.

My personal beliefs on this matter are that America was right for the following reasons

- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war

- The Allied nations gave Japan the oppotunity to surrender via the Potsdam decloration

- The US intentionally avoided targets such as Kyoto which had high level spiritual and cultural significence to the Japanese and instead targeted an industiral area

- The second bomb attack on Nagasaki was nessecary due to the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb attack. And again, Nagasaki was an industrial city.

- An extra three months of war and one more island invasion to actually bring about the surrender probably would have cost the lives of around 500,000 more Japanese, and the subsequent famine resulting from infrastructure collapse might have killed as many as 10 million.

But these are just my views, so lets get the discussion rolling

(Point of rule - If you believe your point to be backed up by evidence do your best to provide it)

(Point of rule - If you believe your point to be backed up by evidence do your best to provide it)

Perhaps you could provide a show of good faith and cite sources for the numbers you just quoted.

Perhaps you could provide a show of good faith and cite sources for the numbers you just quoted.

They are estiamates from a friend's history lecturer.

I would please like a rational, reasonable discussion about the rights and wrongs of the use of the A-bomb in World War Two.

My personal beliefs on this matter are that America was right for the following reasons

- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war

- The Allied nations gave Japan the oppotunity to surrender via the Potsdam decloration

- The US intentionally avoided targets such as Kyoto which had high level spiritual and cultural significence to the Japanese and instead targeted an industiral area

- The second bomb attack on Nagasaki was nessecary due to the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb attack. And again, Nagasaki was an industrial city.

- An extra three months of war and one more island invasion to actually bring about the surrender probably would have cost the lives of around 500,000 more Japanese, and the subsequent famine resulting from infrastructure collapse might have killed as many as 10 million.

But these are just my views, so lets get the discussion rolling

(Point of rule - If you believe your point to be backed up by evidence do your best to provide it)
I agree. You say why very well yourself.

Im visiting New Mexico as we speak, and I plan to go to Los Alamos by the end of the week.:D

estiamates from a friend's history lecturer.I would please like a rational, reasonable discussion about the rights and wrongs of the use of the A-bomb in World War Two.

My personal beliefs on this matter are that America was right for the following reasons

- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war

- The Allied nations gave Japan the oppotunity to surrender via the Potsdam decloration

- The US intentionally avoided targets such as Kyoto which had high level spiritual and cultural significence to the Japanese and instead targeted an industiral area

- The second bomb attack on Nagasaki was nessecary due to the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb attack. And again, Nagasaki was an industrial city.

- An extra three months of war and one more island invasion to actually bring about the surrender probably would have cost the lives of around 500,000 more Japanese, and the subsequent famine resulting from infrastructure collapse might have killed as many as 10 million.

But these are just my views, so lets get the discussion rolling

(Point of rule - If you believe your point to be backed up by evidence do your best to provide it)

Yeah. Time for this again. :rolleyes:
There have been numerous threads on this topic (which seem to have been purged, as they aren't coming up on a search) that have gone into the hundreds of posts.

(And "estiamates (sic) from a friend's history lecturer" are a poor source. If you really want a rational and reasonable debate, find a better source.)

I can understand why they did it ... but I still feel it was wrong to pick civilian targets.

Im visiting New Mexico as we speak, and I plan to go to Los Alamos by the end of the week.:D

Excellent museum. I've been there several times. (It's all that much more fun when accompanied by someone like my father, a physical chemist and engineer who worked on several post WWII projects there. Great stories. ;))

I can understand why they did it ... but I still feel it was wrong to pick civilian targets.

And so it starts. Hiroshima, Kokura, and Nagasaki were targeted for their military value. Hiroshima was a major military HQ, staging point, and transport and logistics hub. The Kokura arsenal was the largest arsenal in Japan, and was responsible for producing chemical and biological munitions. Nagasaki was a major military port and ship yard. saying that they were civilian targets completely ignores the rational behind the targeting of those locations.

Your position is well stated and quite accurate. Of the several questionable decisions of World War Two, the use of Atomic Weapons on Japan is probably the easiest one to defend.

For example, the US operations against Okinawa showed quite clearly the level of resistance that American forces could expect in any assault on the Japanese home islands. In that operation, there were a number of cases of Japanese civilians conducting what were effectively human wave assaults on US positions, armed solely with improvised weapons and bamboo spears. The Imperial Japanese military itself, intransigent at the best of times, simply ceased to be concerned with survival; they instead chose to spend their efforts entirely on the infliction of enemy casualties. US forces were forced, in various places, to use flamethrowers against caves inhabited by civilians, because the Japanese military forces also inhabiting them would neither surrender nor allow the civilians to leave.

Reasonably, the proposed invasion of Hokkaido, it's eventual conquest, and the following invasion of Honshu, would have been accompanied by similar levels of civilian casualties - about 80%. Which would have been literally millions of people.

Reasonably, the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have saved far more lives than they took, even if the saving of US soldiery is not taken into account.

The first bomb was probably inevitable although it possibly could have been avoided. A few hardliners in the Japanese command were refusing an outright unconditional surrender but they would have buckled in time and without land invasion.

The second bomb was a bit unnecessary. It was a shameless scientific exercise; i.e. they had tested one type of bomb and wanted to have a go with the other sort.

Having said that, I 'm not going to judge the US too harshly for dropping the bomb in the first place; after four years of brutal conflict across the Pacific it was probably the logical conclusion.

Truman did, however, blatantly lie about the proceedings. He knew full well that the targets were civilian population centres yet suggested otherwise in his reports.

That's the problem with the A-bomb, eh? Even if you pick a valid military target the civilians are going to get screwed. And the capacity of the bomb to kill so many with such little effort and in a very short time is horrifying.

The reason to use the bomb was both to minimize casualties and to get Japan to surrender inconditionally to the USA. An invasion would have meant the USSR landing troops in the main islands (they had already taken the Kuriles), possibly partitioning the country after the war like Germany.

Like a good chess player, the US were thinking two steps ahead and realised the importance of Japan to contain Soviet expansion in the Pacific. I don't think they foresaw China, though.

Here's a point:
it's better that we learned about the effects of the bomb on people with Hiroshima and Nagasaki than in an all-out nuclear free-for-all.

Perhaps you could provide a show of good faith and cite sources for the numbers you just quoted.

Those are actually on the low side. Most estimates put Japanese death tolls into the millions while allied forces into the hundreds of thousands.

As to the thread itself, how many more times are we going to debate this issue?

The second bomb is fairly easy to justify. Japan did not surrender, and made no serious attempt at starting talks, their forces continued to fight on the mainland, and their internal propaganda (which the US could intercept with ease) was unchanged, indicating there was no atempt being made to prepare the Japanese people for the inevitable. Japan had even made the suggestion that the US only had one bomb, and that since it had been used, there was no further danger
(Propaganda of World War Two, Doubleday, 1965).

As to the targets: Hiroshima was home port to the IJN, and the best harbour in Japan, home to both the Naval Command and the Naval Academy. Nagasaki was known as the "forbidden city" of Japan, because unless you lived there or were a high ranking military or government official, you couldn't go there. Trains travelling through had to pull blinds over their windows so that the passengers couldn't see out. Why? For the same reason as the Russian "research towns" of later decades; most of the advanced research for the Army and Air Force was happening there.

Both cities could reasonably be considered legitimate military targets, in ways that, for instance, Tokyo could not.

I can understand why they did it ... but I still feel it was wrong to pick civilian targets.

Dispite the fact that they were industrial targets as well as having major military facilities in those 2 cities.

The first bomb was probably inevitable although it possibly could have been avoided. A few hardliners in the Japanese command were refusing an outright unconditional surrender but they would have buckled in time and without land invasion.

I call your hogwash and raise you a fact. After the 2nd bombing, these hardliners launched a coup to oust the emperor and to continue the war against the United States.

The second bomb was a bit unnecessary. It was a shameless scientific exercise; i.e. they had tested one type of bomb and wanted to have a go with the other sort.

When your enemy doesn't surrender......

Having said that, I 'm not going to judge the US too harshly for dropping the bomb in the first place; after four years of brutal conflict across the Pacific it was probably the logical conclusion.

Yep and it caused a lot less casualties than an invasion would've

Truman did, however, blatantly lie about the proceedings. He knew full well that the targets were civilian population centres yet suggested otherwise in his reports.

Again, I call hogwash and point to what Daistallia 2104 stated.

Dispite the fact that they were industrial targets as well as having major military facilities in those 2 cities.
Yes, evil scheming inhuman Yellow Peril - they didn't have the same respect for the lives of grandmothers & schoolchildren like America did when they dropped nuclear bombs on 'em.

Yes, evil scheming inhuman Yellow Peril - they didn't have the same respect for the lives of grandmothers & schoolchildren like America did when they dropped nuclear bombs on 'em.

They were training their women and children to fight with bamboo spears in case America landed on Japan.

Do you know what the invasion plan called for?

Oh, yes, the "Kanto Plain Strategy" - how effing wonderful...

I would please like a rational, reasonable discussion about the rights and wrongs of the use of the A-bomb in World War Two.

? Right and wrong from who's view ? Mine is this.



- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war

No, that is just excuse.


- The Allied nations gave Japan the oppotunity to surrender via the Potsdam decloration

Japan wanted 2 surrender. They only ask *one* thing. Promise U will not hurt the Emperor. The USA say? Oh? No conditions! Reject the offer. U want source? Wikipeda.org ---> The purported goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan.


- The second bomb attack on Nagasaki was nessecary due to the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb attack. And again, Nagasaki was an industrial city.

Well, it is kinda hard 2 surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima in only 3 days. Bcuz Hiroshima was so wiped out there was no info coming out of it. No phone lines, nothing. The bombing only 3 days apart. August 6 and August 9, 1945. And Japan still not surrender August 15, a week after the bombings.

About they were industrial cities? The USA wiped out the industry in the other cities but the left it on purpose in those cities. Why? --> " It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb". So that is no excuse they *had* 2 use the A-Bomb on them. And? They blow the bomb up 2,000 feet above the city, bcuz they kno that way it will kill more people.



- An extra three months of war and one more island invasion to actually bring about the surrender probably would have cost the lives of around 500,000 more Japanese, and the subsequent famine resulting from infrastructure collapse might have killed as many as 10 million.

No, that was not gonna happen, they *wanted* 2 surrender. They were *trying* 2 surrender 2 the USA ally, Russia. But, the USA was paranoid of Russia and did not want Russians in Japan, so? They dropped the bombs 2 try and speed it up 4 *that* reason.

Here is a quote " In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war sooner than would otherwise have been the case, and saved many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place. In Japan, the general public tends to think that the bombings were needless as the preparation for the surrender was in progress."

But some think it helped. " Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."

Like I say? Depends on your view.

Dresden Germany was firebombed for two nights and even they drop bombs 2 keep the firemen from putting out the fires, so there was a big firestorm. Dresden had *no* military or industrial stuff. No military reason, only civilian killing. Many extra civilans were there bcuz they all thought it would never B a target bcuz it was not a target in the past and the Germans make sure there is no reason 2 blow it up. It was just revenge 4 the Nazi bombing London. Did U kno that?

And so I think that besides keeping the Russians out, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-Bombed 4 revenge. That is fine with me though. Revenge is sweet.

Suzy :)

Well, it's my OPINION that Japan would have surrendered. The USSR also had plans to invade, and they would have been far less kind than the USA. Stalin's troops were not known for mercy in conquered territories, and there's the old Russo-Japanese War score to settle. Faced with war with the USSR as well, it's really only logical to surrender to the USA while you still can.

As for whether the bombs, or both bombs, were truly necessary? I can't say. This is a "What If?" scenario and as such, all evidence and data and statitics are just speculation. Sure, the US invasion would have cost a lot more lives - if Japan didn't surrender first. (And they did). Who knows what would have happened if the nukes had been scheduled for later, or the USSR had declared war earlier. I don't, but I'm not omniscient.

No, that is just excuse.

Actually, it really wasn't an excuse. It was one of the reasons we did drop the bomb.

Japan wanted 2 surrender. They only ask *one* thing. Promise U will not hurt the Emperor. The USA say? Oh? No conditions! Reject the offer. U want source? Wikipeda.org ---> The purported goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan.

Semi-accurate. They went to the USSR to get them to mediate the talks for whatever reasons. The USSR rejected them and on August 8th, 1945 declared war on Japan. And the Potsdam Proclamation stated that Japan and Germany must surrender unconditionally.

Well, it is kinda hard 2 surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima in only 3 days. Bcuz Hiroshima was so wiped out there was no info coming out of it. No phone lines, nothing. The bombing only 3 days apart. August 6 and August 9, 1945. And Japan still not surrender August 15, a week after the bombings.

And do you know what happened after the Emperor said that it was over shortly after learning about the bombing? Guess what? There was a COUP!! If the coup succeeded, there would've been no cease-fire on August 15th. The Surrender took place in September.

About they were industrial cities? The USA wiped out the industry in the other cities but the left it on purpose in those cities. Why? --> " It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb". So that is no excuse they *had* 2 use the A-Bomb on them. And? They blow the bomb up 2,000 feet above the city, bcuz they kno that way it will kill more people.

*sighs* I see where this is going and I believe someone here has a twisted sense of history. They were industrial and military targets.

No, that was not gonna happen, they *wanted* 2 surrender. They were *trying* 2 surrender 2 the USA ally, Russia. But, the USA was paranoid of Russia and did not want Russians in Japan, so? They dropped the bombs 2 try and speed it up 4 *that* reason.

And yet another inaccurate post. They went to the USSR to get mediation between them and the USA. The USSR rejected THEM and declared war ON JAPAN two days after Hiroshima. Oops!! I guess you forgot that tidbit.

Here is a quote " In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war sooner than would otherwise have been the case, and saved many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place. In Japan, the general public tends to think that the bombings were needless as the preparation for the surrender was in progress."

I hope you know that Japan was on the losing side don't you? Of course their going to say this. :rolleyes:

But some think it helped. " Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."

This I can believe.

Like I say? Depends on your view.

I'll stick with the facts.

Dresden Germany was firebombed for two nights and even they drop bombs 2 keep the firemen from putting out the fires, so there was a big firestorm. Dresden had *no* military or industrial stuff. No military reason, only civilian killing. Many extra civilans were there bcuz they all thought it would never B a target bcuz it was not a target in the past and the Germans make sure there is no reason 2 blow it up. It was just revenge 4 the Nazi bombing London. Did U kno that?

Yep and it has been debated on this forum before.

And so I think that besides keeping the Russians out, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-Bombed 4 revenge. That is fine me though. Revenge is sweet.

Oh brother.

I'll keep this short, since it's been debated to death god only knows how many times before.

The bombs were regrettable, hugely so. Unfortunately for contemporary politicians and military commanders they were the only option that could be agreed upon. An invasion would take years and cost millions of combined casualties, and a blockade would allow the USSR to invade Japan and possibly creater a Japanese/Tokyop version of Berlin, whoch Truman and hardliners could not have happen. The two cities were military targets, and the hardliners in the Japanses government would not surrender, even attemtping to mount a coup.

Thus, the bombs were neccessary. Highly regrettable and morally wrong, but the only contemporary choice to make at the time - which is what must be taken into account here. Hindsight makes a perfect general.

Potsdam appears to be similar to Versailles, but not quite as harsh. It seems hardly suprising that the military wished to reject it. It is lucky that the Togo was successful in managing to get the Japanese cabient to agree to an unconditional surrender after the Allies had rejected their one conditional request to keep the Emperor. If it were not for Togo then the US would have had to face an invasion despite dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan.

Besides which, Japan was running short of petrol and food and the US could have just waited for these supplies to run out before extending the offer of surrender again.

Even more so, as I am aware, the IJN was decimated at the Battle of Midway. It seems that the US could have operated with impunity off the shores of Japan.

Finally, someone mentioned that Japan wasn't preparing to surrender in its internal communications. Did any country in WWII prepare for surrender before all hope was lost and its capital city taken?

The second bomb was a bit unnecessary. It was a shameless scientific exercise; i.e. they had tested one type of bomb and wanted to have a go with the other sort.


The Japanese did not surrender after the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb. The Americans wanted to show the Japanese that Hiroshima was not a fluke

Dresden Germany was firebombed for two nights and even they drop bombs 2 keep the firemen from putting out the fires, so there was a big firestorm. Dresden had *no* military or industrial stuff. No military reason, only civilian killing. Many extra civilans were there bcuz they all thought it would never B a target bcuz it was not a target in the past and the Germans make sure there is no reason 2 blow it up. It was just revenge 4 the Nazi bombing London. Did U kno that?

I've studied this era and I can tell you for a fact that that assessment is just plain wrong. While it is true that an element of the bombing of Dresden was revenge for London, to say there was no industrial capacity there is inacurate

In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.8 Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).9

I still have seen no argument as to why a blockade wouldn't have been better. You just keep all the imports out and wait for the country to starve.

The only argument I've seen against it is that it could give the soviets a chance to invade. So America condemned millions to death to keep the Soviets out.

I would please like a rational, reasonable discussion about the rights and wrongs of the use of the A-bomb in World War Two.

My personal beliefs on this matter are that America was right for the following reasons

- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war

- The Allied nations gave Japan the oppotunity to surrender via the Potsdam decloration

- The US intentionally avoided targets such as Kyoto which had high level spiritual and cultural significence to the Japanese and instead targeted an industiral area

- The second bomb attack on Nagasaki was nessecary due to the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb attack. And again, Nagasaki was an industrial city.

- An extra three months of war and one more island invasion to actually bring about the surrender probably would have cost the lives of around 500,000 more Japanese, and the subsequent famine resulting from infrastructure collapse might have killed as many as 10 million.

But these are just my views, so lets get the discussion rolling

(Point of rule - If you believe your point to be backed up by evidence do your best to provide it)

Well put. What most who denounce this do not understand is that a invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been really nasty. Casualties would have been far, far greater than bombing these two cities had done.

Anyone reading up on WW2 history should look at when we took some of the islands back in the Pacific. Japanese officers told civilians that the US soldiers where bloodthirsty killers. When the US troops arrived they were going to rape and slaughter whole villages. So, when our troops came in, people were throwing themselves off cliffs, killing family members then themselves to avoid the fate that the Japanese said they would face with the US troops. Mix this in with the Japanese belief that it was more honorable to die than be taken prisoner and you have yourself a bloodbath.

The first bomb was probably inevitable although it possibly could have been avoided. A few hardliners in the Japanese command were refusing an outright unconditional surrender but they would have buckled in time and without land invasion.

The second bomb was a bit unnecessary. It was a shameless scientific exercise; i.e. they had tested one type of bomb and wanted to have a go with the other sort.

Having said that, I 'm not going to judge the US too harshly for dropping the bomb in the first place; after four years of brutal conflict across the Pacific it was probably the logical conclusion.

Truman did, however, blatantly lie about the proceedings. He knew full well that the targets were civilian population centres yet suggested otherwise in his reports.

First those 'few hardliners' made up Japans leadership. After Hirshima their supreme council voted 6-0 to keep up the war. After Nagasaki it was a 3-3 tie and the Emperor himself had to break the tie and settle for peace. It was already posted that they were military targets. WWII killed 55 million people. The Bomb killed at worst 250,000 that is only 4.5 percent. Why we debate over this 4.5 percent instead of the 5.4 pecent killed in the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese I will never know.

I still have seen no argument as to why a blockade wouldn't have been better. You just keep all the imports out and wait for the country to starve.

The only argument I've seen against it is that it could give the soviets a chance to invade. So America condemned millions to death to keep the Soviets out.

Unfortunately for a large part, that's true. The beginnings of Cold War politics did start to seep into the Japanese situation, with an insecure Truman not wanting to seem soft to Stalin, and also wanting to avoid any post-war occupation of Japan that would give the USSR more ground. The Bomb gave him the ultimate in Tough-Guy status.

However, you must also remember that the JCOS gave casualties lists for Operation Olympic as large as 500,00 for US troops alone, and millions more for Japanses troops and civilians, so an invasion was out of the question - it would also take months to prepare and years to complete. As was a blockade; the US Navy was uncontested, true, but once again Cold War politics came in; this would have allowed the USSR to have invaded Northern Japan, as they had done to the Kuril Islands, and this was unacceptable to Truman and many advisors. A blockade would also have been unacceptable to many in the public - they wanted a quick end to the war as had been given to the European theatre, not to mention that the blockade would have taken upto a year even with Japan's shattered resources.

Thus contemporary reasons meant Truman had only one choice that was realistic to his view that the USSR could not be allowed to invade Japan, that an invasion was military and public opinion suicide, and that a blockade was also out of the question for the same reason as the USSR invasion. Combined with the fact that Truman did not know the full impact the weapons would have, and that the two targets chosen were military targets, and the Japanese refusal to bow to the unconditional surrender - something Truman could not change and did not want to - the Bombs were the only 'reasonable choice' to make at the time. Morally repugnant, but militarily, politically and publically the best.

Hindsight correctly judges that it was a horrible and inhumane thing to do, and it was, but it was the only realistic contemporary judgement Truman could make.

If anyone doubts just how bloody a full-scale invasion of Japan would've been please read this

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

It is one of the most frightening things ive ever contemplated.

Again, I call hogwash and point to what Daistallia 2104 stated.


I never claimed that the targets weren't legitimate; they were legitmate for lots of different reasons.

It is, however, a matter of record that Truman lied about the extent to which he understood that they also contained large civilian populations.

With that in mind, your response doesn't actually make sense does it?

The second bomb was a bit unnecessary. It was a shameless scientific exercise; i.e. they had tested one type of bomb and wanted to have a go with the other sort.

.


Just for your info

The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium gun type bomb known to work, the Nakasaki bomb was a plutonium sphere type bomb, this was the bomb type tested at Trinity , New Mexico to make sure that it would work

For the record, Japan wanted to surrender wit the Emperor still in power before the bombs. This would have let many war criminals get away and it would have let them build up their army and in 20 years they'd be at it again. Why? Because that's waht millitary dictatorships do! They use their army to get stuff! Would you let the nazis stay in power after Germany lost? And there is no differnece between the bushido (sp) code (the messed up versian used in WWII) and the final solution.

If anyone doubts just how bloody a full-scale invasion of Japan would've been please read this

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

It is one of the most frightening things ive ever contemplated.

Although much of that is fine, I question the One Million casualties figure. Even the most liberal JSOC report, with untrained and green Pacific troops in 1946 gave a total only of 514,072 (From a ratio of 7.45 from their official report). From: More What if, by Robert Cowley. The 1 Million casualties would have been combined US and Japanese military and civilian casualties, and that's a conservative number at very best.

Japan wanted 2 surrender. They only ask *one* thing. Promise U will not hurt the Emperor. The USA say? Oh? No conditions! Reject the offer. U want source? Wikipeda.org ---> The purported goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan.
Of course we wanted unconditional. Would you let the nazis go free? Just becasue the nazis' genocide was remebered and Japan's wasn't doesn't make it right.


Well, it is kinda hard 2 surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima in only 3 days. Bcuz Hiroshima was so wiped out there was no info coming out of it. No phone lines, nothing. The bombing only 3 days apart. August 6 and August 9, 1945. And Japan still not surrender August 15, a week after the bombings.

It's also hard to surrender when you don't want to. The government was 100% agreed on keeping it up.


About they were industrial cities? The USA wiped out the industry in the other cities but the left it on purpose in those cities. Why? --> " It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb". So that is no excuse they *had* 2 use the A-Bomb on them. And? They blow the bomb up 2,000 feet above the city, bcuz they kno that way it will kill more people.
We dropped it at 2000 ft to destroy more buildings and to lessen radiation.


Dresden Germany was firebombed for two nights and even they drop bombs 2 keep the firemen from putting out the fires, so there was a big firestorm. Dresden had *no* military or industrial stuff. No military reason, only civilian killing. Many extra civilans were there bcuz they all thought it would never B a target bcuz it was not a target in the past and the Germans make sure there is no reason 2 blow it up. It was just revenge 4 the Nazi bombing London. Did U kno that?


Yes I did. I bet it had some milliatry stuff although I don't know much about it. Actually if it was revenge it was for Cantabary. The only way to destroy industry witht he bombs they had was to wipe out a city. In that war mass city bombings were humane becasue they had no other way. Now we have better ways of doing it.

I still have seen no argument as to why a blockade wouldn't have been better. You just keep all the imports out and wait for the country to starve.

That was being done. Guess what? The Japanese Military Commanders didn't care.

I never claimed that the targets weren't legitimate; they were legitmate for lots of different reasons.

It is, however, a matter of record that Truman lied about the extent to which he understood that they also contained large civilian populations.

With that in mind, your response doesn't actually make sense does it?

Sorry dude but they were selected for military reasons. I believe one of the questions Truman asked his staff was about International Law.

And if we use your civilian population thing, everyone knew that Berlin, London, Tokyo, Hamburg, and many other cities of industrial capacity had a large civilian population. It really is irrelevent in this case as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit military targets.

Your arguement holds no weight.

Although much of that is fine, I question the One Million casualties figure. Even the most liberal JSOC report, with untrained and green Pacific troops in 1946 gave a total only of 514,072 (From a ratio of 7.45 from their official report). From: More What if, by Robert Cowley. The 1 Million casualties would have been combined US and Japanese military and civilian casualties, and that's a conservative number at very best.

Japanese civilian casualties would be a hell of a lot higher in reality.

Of course we wanted unconditional. Would you let the nazis go free?
Well, the US didn't seem to have too much trouble letting certain Nazis go free. The ones who knew how to use slide rules, that is.

Well, the US didn't seem to have too much trouble letting certain Nazis go free. The ones who knew how to use slide rules, that is.

And on the same note, the Soviet Union did the samething. Now that we have both superpowers doing it......

It led to the thing we call the space race.

And on the same note, the Soviet Union did the samething. Now that we have both superpowers doing it......

It led to the thing we call the space race.
It also led to ICBMs. Spy satellites. And a lot of other bollocks we frankly didn't need.

So on the one hand, it was virtuous and good of America to bomb the crap out of Japanese children and old folks ('cause they all would've slashed the throats of GIs with sharpened bits of bamboo anyway, peril peril peril), while on the other hand, it was also virtuous and good of America to spirit away Nazis (whose work entailed designing and building all manner of lethal devices and delivery systems for same) in order to plunge the world into a Cold War and create even more lethal devices and delivery systems for same.

Wow, I am so unimpressed. And don't bother trying to engage me with the tired old "but them thar Commies wuz doin' it, too" argument. It's that kind of thinking that lets CIA torture centres spring up like daffodils in spring.

It also led to ICBMs. Spy satellites. And a lot of other bollocks we frankly didn't need.

And commercial sattelites, Weather Satellites, GPS, Digital Watches, Computers, Microwave ovens, and a whole host of other electronics that we use today. :rolleyes:

So on the one hand, it was virtuous and good of America to bomb the crap out of Japanese children and old folks ('cause they all would've slashed the throats of GIs with sharpened bits of bamboo anyway, peril peril peril), while on the other hand, it was also virtuous and good of America to spirit away Nazis (whose work entailed designing and building all manner of lethal devices and delivery systems for same) in order to plunge the world into a Cold War and create even more lethal devices and delivery systems for same.

Wow, I am so unimpressed. And don't bother trying to engage me with the tired old "but them thar Commies wuz doin' it, too" argument. It's that kind of thinking that lets CIA torture centres spring up like daffodils in spring.

All I can do to the rest of this post is :rolleyes:

Im visiting New Mexico as we speak, and I plan to go to Los Alamos by the end of the week.:D
too bad you didnt go next month. trinity site is open the first saturday of april every year. there isnt much to see but its such a strange feeling to be standing where the first atomic bomb was detonated

they also have some good exhibits at the national atomic museum in albuquerque. its near oldtown so the rest of your group can look at stuff that might be more interesting to them.

too bad you didnt go next month. trinity site is open the first saturday of april every year. there isnt much to see but its such a strange feeling to be standing where the first atomic bomb was detonated

they also have some good exhibits at the national atomic museum in albuquerque. its near oldtown so the rest of your group can look at stuff that might be more interesting to them.

Hmmm...perhaps this"Strange Feeling" is the massive amount of radiation your body in absorbing?

Or you beginning to glow green?

Or growing a third ovary?

Hmmm...perhaps this"Strange Feeling" is the massive amount of radiation your body in absorbing?

Or you beginning to glow green?

Or growing a third ovary?
lol

its not all that radioactive. they scraped away all the worst soil and put it somewhere. they dont recommend that pregnant women or very small children go.

i dont know what they did with the radioactive stuff but you can buy "trinitite" at any number of local rock shops. its the rock formed when the blast melted the sand into glass.

lol

its not all that radioactive. they scraped away all the worst soil and put it somewhere. they dont recommend that pregnant women or very small children go.

i dont know what they did with the radioactive stuff but you can buy "trinitite" at any number of local rock shops. its the rock formed when the blast melted the sand into glass.

Yes. That's exactly what I want. An extremely radioactive rock in my bedroom.

Well, I already have a brick of uranium in there, so I'm screwed anyway. BRING ON THE TRINITITE!

- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war



Yeah, there is nothing wrong in killing random japanese people to spare som US lives... :rolleyes:

Yeah, there is nothing wrong in killing random japanese people to spare som US lives... :rolleyes:
its not like the japanese were the abused innocents in ww2

its not like the japanese were the abused innocents in ww2

whom do you refer to with "the japanese"? the citzens of Japan, the emporer or the military?

Yeah, there is nothing wrong in killing random japanese people to spare som US lives... :rolleyes:

And yet many Japanese lives were also spared from dying in an American Invasion of Japan.

As to the thread itself, how many more times are we going to debate this issue?

Oh, probably not near as many times as such topics as the existence or nonexistence of God. :p

Oh, probably not near as many times as such topics as the existence or nonexistence of God. :p

HAHA!!

Ok you have me on that one :D There's a thread on that topic every 10 minutes :D

I'm no fan of nuclear war or civilian casualties at all, but from the evidence I've seen, I'm inclined to believe the nukes were justified. They really did save lives and death by being vaporized by nukes is preferable to death by bayonets, gun shots, and starvation, anyway. Considering that the Japanese had done (genocide, etc.), the bombs were probably an act of mercy.

HAHA!!

Ok you have me on that one :D There's a thread on that topic every 10 minutes :D

Not to mention the hyjacks.

Speaking of that...

GOD DOES EXIST!

whom do you refer to with "the japanese"? the citzens of Japan, the emporer or the military?
in war its all of the above

just as the citizens of korea, china, the phillipines, etc suffered horribly at the hands of the japanese military.

And yet many Japanese lives were also spared from dying in an American Invasion of Japan.
What, the lives of the bloodthirsty "Yellow Peril"-types who were all, to a man, rigorously trained to garrotte American GIs with boiled noodles, impale them with sharpened twigs, et cetera? Thank goodness they were spared from dying in an American invasion by being allowed to roast like pigs on a spit instead.

The humanity of it all, it just brings tears to my cheeks, I tell ya.

1) The main scientists who voted on the use of the atom bomb were highly disappointed with the interpretation of their vote.

2) Estimates suck. My book estimates 100k American soldiers dead. To my knowledge, 100k people < 200k+ people. Then again... look at 3

3) However, I will have to note that about as many people could die in one day from firebombing as they could from one atomic bomb. The difference lies in the lasting effect: The atomic bomb seriously injured a lot of people who had children that were injured. At least a normal bomb doesn't leave deformations on your unborn children.

1 and 2 are both from a physics book that I have. It's in Danish and is called Manhatten Projektet (Da Videnskaben Mistede Uskylden).
The Manhatten Project (When Science Lost Its Innocence)

For 3: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-34.htm (mentions how Tokyo firebombing killed more people).
http://www.japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=282 (according to this article, a fifth of the deaths could be attributed to the atomic bombs).

It's also rather common knowledge that atomic bombs have lingering effects. They've greatly reduced these in today's bombs, but those bombs have had a great effect for the past 60 years (although it is supposedly beginning to decline). That's why they're worse than normal bombs - they stick around (granted, they weren't entirely sure of this, but the fact that they used it before adequately observing its effects just goes to show how less than necessary thought was put into the bombing).

And to anyone who might say "but the bomb saved americans!" yeah well it killed japanese, and neither is better than the other and estimates suck and at the end of the day. It didn't just kill the japanese, but has mutilated some too.

What, the lives of the bloodthirsty "Yellow Peril"-types who were all, to a man, rigorously trained to garrotte American GIs with boiled noodles, impale them with sharpened twigs, et cetera? Thank goodness they were spared from dying in an American invasion by being allowed to roast like pigs on a spit instead.

The humanity of it all, it just brings tears to my cheeks, I tell ya.

Oh grow up.

in war its all of the above

just as the citizens of korea, china, the phillipines, etc suffered horribly at the hands of the japanese military.

Oh. Is that why the US supported West Germnay? because it was the same people who had made genocide on the jews and co., and generally made people from different countires suffer...

I dont think that genocide happens because of the collective will of citzens in a nation..

Oh. Is that why the US supported West Germnay? because it was the same people who had made genocide on the jews and co., and generally made people from different countires suffer...

I dont think that genocide happens because of the collective will of citzens in a nation..

And this has what to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nothing.

In reality, the Japanese military were worse butchers than Stalin or Hitler combined.

Well, Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower, along with Admiral Leahy, Secretary of State Byrnes and the US Bombing Survey all found no military justification for the bombing. The Emperor of Japan had sent a letter asking for peace on the 18th July 1945, and an official noted that on 3rd August, the President and two advisers were discussing a telegram from the Emperor also asking for peace. The blockade had worked: Japan was already defeated.

You say that an unconditional surrender was necessary so that the Emperor and his generals could not escape, but the Potsdam Declaration never mentioned making the Emperor stand down.

Your position is well stated and quite accurate. Of the several questionable decisions of World War Two, the use of Atomic Weapons on Japan is probably the easiest one to defend.

For example, the US operations against Okinawa showed quite clearly the level of resistance that American forces could expect in any assault on the Japanese home islands. In that operation, there were a number of cases of Japanese civilians conducting what were effectively human wave assaults on US positions, armed solely with improvised weapons and bamboo spears. The Imperial Japanese military itself, intransigent at the best of times, simply ceased to be concerned with survival; they instead chose to spend their efforts entirely on the infliction of enemy casualties. US forces were forced, in various places, to use flamethrowers against caves inhabited by civilians, because the Japanese military forces also inhabiting them would neither surrender nor allow the civilians to leave.

Reasonably, the proposed invasion of Hokkaido, it's eventual conquest, and the following invasion of Honshu, would have been accompanied by similar levels of civilian casualties - about 80%. Which would have been literally millions of people.

Reasonably, the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have saved far more lives than they took, even if the saving of US soldiery is not taken into account.

Theres footage from WWII of japanese civilians on the islands we did invade jumping off cliffs to avoid being captured by US soldiers. As well as stories of people killing thier families for the same reason. I definitely think it was the right choice to drop the a-bombs, if anything similiar had happened on the main islands of japan it would have been horrendous.

Well, Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower, along with Admiral Leahy, Secretary of State Byrnes and the US Bombing Survey all found no military justification for the bombing. The Emperor of Japan had sent a letter asking for peace on the 18th July 1945, and an official noted that on 3rd August, the President and two advisers were discussing a telegram from the Emperor also asking for peace. The blockade had worked: Japan was already defeated.

You say that an unconditional surrender was necessary so that the Emperor and his generals could not escape, but the Potsdam Declaration never mentioned making the Emperor stand down.

No it didn't but it did call for Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese were calling for conditions and that flew in the face of Unconditional Surrender.

*note* how are you doing DSP?

And this has what to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nothing.

In reality, the Japanese military were worse butchers than Stalin or Hitler combined.

asmoria says the japanese citzens was guilty for the genocide etc.
I say they arn't, an back that up with an example from germany... The german citzens wasn't executed like the nazi top, ergo, the german citzens was said to be innocent...

And this has what to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nothing.

In reality, the Japanese military were worse butchers than Stalin or Hitler combined.

The Japanese military had little to do with the Japanese people.

The same way the German military had little to do with the German people.

In both cases, everyone was involved. In the case of Japan, it's apparently okay to kill Japanese civilians, but in the case of Germany, you have to help the west Germans that survive the war. I smell hypocricy.

I think that had we not ended the war by dropping the a-bombs on Japan, we would never have fully known the effects that using the bombs would have, and thus may have been tempted to use them in the Korean War or against China or the Soviet Union. The best deterrent to nuclear war has been, paradoxically, knowing the devasting effects such a war would have, as evidenced by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No it didn't but it did call for Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese were calling for conditions and that flew in the face of Unconditional Surrender.

Well, the Potsdam Declaration wasn't really unconditional. It promised the Japanese freedom of speech and self-governance among other things, and it only used the phrase "unconditional surrender" once, in the last paragraph. Plus, the deaths of 100,000-200,000 civilians isn't really justified by a matter of wording. The German government in 1918 agreed to a ceasefire rather than surrendering, and they still ended up with Versailles. So how could Japan dictate the peace terms in 1945, with no fuel, no navy, few planes and the Red Army poised to invade Hokkaido?

*note* how are you doing DSP?

K, thanks. Who's this from Particracy?

Well, the Potsdam Declaration wasn't really unconditional. It promised the Japanese freedom of speech and self-governance among other things, and it only used the phrase "unconditional surrender" once, in the last paragraph. Plus, the deaths of 100,000-200,000 civilians isn't really justified by a matter of wording. The German government in 1918 agreed to a ceasefire rather than surrendering, and they still ended up with Versailles. So how could Japan dictate the peace terms in 1945, with no fuel, no navy, few planes and the Red Army poised to invade Hokkaido?

They could've surrendered at anytime. We called on them to surrender often enough after Iwo Jima and Okinawa. After Hiroshima, we called on them to surrender again and then again after Nagasaki. In retrospect, troops were getting into position to launch an invasion of Japan in case they didn't surrender. That was the other plan. To invade Japan without using the nuclear bombs. That would've been an even greater horror than the atomic bombs in my opinion.

K, thanks. Who's this from Particracy?

Why its your friendly neighbor the Rightist Party :)

The Japanese military had little to do with the Japanese people.

The same way the German military had little to do with the German people.

In both cases, everyone was involved. In the case of Japan, it's apparently okay to kill Japanese civilians, but in the case of Germany, you have to help the west Germans that survive the war. I smell hypocricy.


What are you on about? We didn't drop bombs on German cities? We didn't kill German civilians in order to get to military targets?

And don't tell me we didn't help rebuild Japan the same way we did Germany after the war. Its not hypocracy.

We weren't rebuilding Germany until after they surrendered. See that word? After? Same thing with Japan.

Oh. Is that why the US supported West Germnay? because it was the same people who had made genocide on the jews and co., and generally made people from different countires suffer...

I dont think that genocide happens because of the collective will of citzens in a nation..
now im no scholar of ww2 but it seems to me that the allies bombed many german cities and that manymany german civilians died. the firebombing of dresden comes to mind.

AFTER the war, we made peace with both germany and japan and worked to rebuild both countries on a peaceful model. (except for east germany who had the great misfortune of ending up in soviet control)

Sorry dude but they were selected for military reasons.


This is the second time you have mis-represented my argument. Would you care to provide any evidence of where I may have suggested that the targets were not selected for military reasons?



And if we use your civilian population thing, everyone knew that Berlin, London, Tokyo, Hamburg, and many other cities of industrial capacity had a large civilian population. It really is irrelevent in this case as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit military targets.


What exactly are you talking about? The two cities were legitimate military target and they were centres of civilian population. Truman obscured this fact in his address to the US people (August 9, 1945)

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..."

This was a blatant lie. The truth was that Hiroshima was not exclusively a military base and to describe it as such was misleading. In addition, the attack was not primarily designed to limit, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians; it was however decided that such concerns were of secondary importance. There are many reasons why this strategy was correct.



Your arguement holds no weight.


Considering that you have fundamentally failed to understand it; you'll forgive me for rejecting your arrogant sign-off outright.

This is the second time you have mis-represented my argument. Would you care to provide any evidence of where I may have suggested that the targets were not selected for military reasons?

For one you keep rambling on about how they were civilian population centers, totally ignoring the fact that they were militarily significant. Not once did you mention this.

What exactly are you talking about? The two cities were legitimate military target and they were centres of civilian population. Truman obscured this fact in his address to the US people (August 9, 1945)

I see you cna't put two and two together. I'll spell it out for you. Every city hit by conventional bombs were civilian population centers and military targets.

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..."

http://www.historychannel.com/broadband/clipview/index.jsp?id=v2t11

A 25 second clip on the first atomic bomb.Why odn't you provide a link for your speech.

This was a blatant lie. The truth was that Hiroshima was not exclusively a military base and to describe it as such was misleading.

It was being used as a military base. It was also attacked by the Nuclear bomb to save lives "of thousands and thousands of American lives"

In addition, the attack was not primarily designed to limit, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians; it was however decided that such concerns were of secondary importance. There are many reasons why this strategy was correct.

Why don't you begin to provide links to back up your assertions?

Considering that you have fundamentally failed to understand it; you'll forgive me for rejecting your arrogant sign-off outright.

At least I have studied the topic indepth and know that the bombs, both of them, were dropped to save civilian and soldier alike. I'll wait for links from you to back up your assertions.

OK, you're starting to embarrass yourself here. I suggest the first thing you do is refer back to my original post in this topic. If you actually read it you might find that I've not actually stated any of the things you seem to be continually claiming that I have.



For one you keep rambling on about how they were civilian population centers, totally ignoring the fact that they were militarily significant. Not once did you mention this.



Firstly, I have not been 'rambling on about it' as you so intelligently chose to put it. I stated in the first post that the targets were civilian population centres and that Truman chose to play down this aspect when he justified the action in public. In my next post I agreed that the targets were legitimate for a number of reasons; I had supposed that you would correctly identify these as primarily military reasons, given that we are talking about...erm..acts of war in this discussion. I didn't realise I had to spell everything out so explicitly in order for you to avoid any misunderstanding.

You seem to have employed a very simplistic manner of reasoning; i.e. the fact that I fail to mention something illustrates that I am denying it's existence. I suggest you abandon this technique as it makes you look ridiculous.



I see you cna't put two and two together. I'll spell it out for you. Every city hit by conventional bombs were civilian population centers and military targets.



Patronised by you? Well, it's almost insulting despite being laughable. Are you are aware that you have just repeated back to me precisely what I wrote in my last post, like some kind of idiot parrot?




It was being used as a military base. It was also attacked by the Nuclear bomb to save lives "of thousands and thousands of American lives"



More cretinous repetition. I have not disagreed with either of these statements so I find it hard to appreciate why exactly you are presenting them yet again.



Why don't you begin to provide links to back up your assertions?



I know you seem to have a problem with saying things more frequently than is strictly necessary but you have stated this 3 times in the same post. If anyone is 'rambling on and on' about various things, it certainly isn't me.

Which assertion are you asking me to back up? The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets and centres of civilian population? I wasn't aware that you were in disagreement with this contention.

As for the Truman quotation, if you are challenging its accuracy or indeed its truthfulness please let me know. I would have thought that someone who claims to know as much as you do about these matters would be able to determine themselves whether these words were actually spoken by the then President?

Dresden Germany was firebombed for two nights and even they drop bombs 2 keep the firemen from putting out the fires, so there was a big firestorm. Dresden had *no* military or industrial stuff. No military reason, only civilian killing. Many extra civilans were there bcuz they all thought it would never B a target bcuz it was not a target in the past and the Germans make sure there is no reason 2 blow it up. It was just revenge 4 the Nazi bombing London. Did U kno that?


Yes, and wasnt it done because of a typically British intelligence fuck up that misread "ornaments factories" as "armaments factories"?


I do think the bombs were, on the whole, better used than not. Although maybe there could ahve been a slightly longer wait between them to let the scale of the damage to be absorbed.

Oh, and the firebombing of tokyo killied more people than either atomic bomb.

While we're at it...does anyone have pictures of London during/after the bombing by the Germans?

I realise it's easy to find destroyed buildings - but I am looking for some indication for how large the damage really was. A picture from the air, something to see on whether the damage wasn't just on some areas.

Like these here...they are pictures of Hamburg, where my family lived.
http://www.valourandhorror.com/lib/VH/modules/Media/lib/getMedia.php?koId=10260
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/tours/germany/gifs/hamburg.jpg
http://www.exulanten.com/images/90b_hamburg_1945.jpg

So I suppose what I would like to say is that no matter what the argument might be for whether or not something was justified - it was still wrong. It was still a horrible thing to do. And ultimately it is important that the Allies too recognise that.

Bomber pilots don't deserve medals, or war graves. They should be glad that they will not be bothered for what they did, but they should not be rewarded for it.

While we're at it...does anyone have pictures of London during/after the bombing by the Germans?

I realise it's easy to find destroyed buildings - but I am looking for some indication for how large the damage really was. A picture from the air, something to see on whether the damage wasn't just on some areas.

Like these here...they are pictures of Hamburg, where my family lived.
http://www.valourandhorror.com/lib/VH/modules/Media/lib/getMedia.php?koId=10260
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/tours/germany/gifs/hamburg.jpg
http://www.exulanten.com/images/90b_hamburg_1945.jpg

So I suppose what I would like to say is that no matter what the argument might be for whether or not something was justified - it was still wrong. It was still a horrible thing to do. And ultimately it is important that the Allies too recognise that.

Bomber pilots don't deserve medals, or war graves. They should be glad that they will not be bothered for what they did, but they should not be rewarded for it.

I really wish I could argue with you on that last point...but really I can't. All I can say is that they believed in what they were doing, fighting back at Germany the only way they could, especially in the earlier years of the war. Their job wasn't glamorous and it was difficult, extremely dangerous and took a lot of courage to do.

Not an argument so much as...well. I don't know really - trying to make them out as just men trying to fight for their country in a far more controversial way than your averager soldier or fighter pilot.

Not an argument so much as...well. I don't know really - trying to make them out as just men trying to fight for their country in a far more controversial way than your averager soldier or fighter pilot.
I'm sure they were. And some might not even have enjoyed what they were doing (although interviews that I have seen seem to indicate that they liked it).

But just as there are other situations where someone has to do something ugly and wrong for what might be the right reasons, we should never forget that what they did was wrong. Our reward for their good intentions is that they will never have to face what they have done. That is all they can expect.

I really wish I could argue with you on that last point...but really I can't. All I can say is that they believed in what they were doing, fighting back at Germany the only way they could, especially in the earlier years of the war. Their job wasn't glamorous and it was difficult, extremely dangerous and took a lot of courage to do.

Not an argument so much as...well. I don't know really - trying to make them out as just men trying to fight for their country in a far more controversial way than your averager soldier or fighter pilot.Understand that for every British person killed by German bombs, about 8 or 9 Germans were killed by Allied bombing runs from Britain. And that would be including V1s and V2s. The bombings of a lot of cities targeted civilians intentionally, with the goal in mind being to use incendiary bombs to create a firestorm in the old parts of German cities (the ones that still had wooden buildings). The firestorms would consume all the oxygen in the area, killing anyone that managed to survive the explosions in a bunker or other shelter. The idea was to get the Germans war weary by killing as many as possible and thus bring the war to a conclusion. It didn't really work.

And commercial sattelites, Weather Satellites, GPS, Digital Watches, Computers, Microwave ovens, and a whole host of other electronics that we use today. :rolleyes:

Yeah. We should have killed all our scientists just to hold the world back.

I'm sure they were. And some might not even have enjoyed what they were doing (although interviews that I have seen seem to indicate that they liked it).

But just as there are other situations where someone has to do something ugly and wrong for what might be the right reasons, we should never forget that what they did was wrong. Our reward for their good intentions is that they will never have to face what they have done. That is all they can expect.

Bombers are the worst kind. Bombing should be completely restricted to large military facilities.

Yeah. We should have killed all our scientists just to hold the world back.
You're talking "we" again...not even I use "we" to talk about Nazi Germany.

Anyways, the Nazis did their best to get Germany's best scientists to leave the country. And in the final weeks of the war, pretty much everyone was open for being killed by Volkssturm fanatics, scientist or not.

You're talking "we" again...not even I use "we" to talk about Nazi Germany.

Well, that's the problem with Germany, IMO. We weren't Nazis. We didn't lose, we were liberated! Bullshit. You lost, and you should be a little bit angry about it.

Well, that's the problem with Germany, IMO. We weren't Nazis. We didn't lose, we were liberated! Bullshit. You lost, and you should be a little bit angry about it.
Well, at the time it would have been more of a defeat than a liberation. Ultimately, perhaps, the best way to look at it was as a liberation from the insanity that the war had become.

But if you ask me, the last weeks of the war were the closest the world has come to a state of armageddon, a time when the world really seemed to end and an afterwards was no longer possible.

But with hindsight, and in the long run, I don't think Germans can complain. It worked out allright.

But with hindsight, and in the long run, I don't think Germans can complain. It worked out allright.

Worked out excellent. Germany now has as much power and influence as a walnut.

Worked out excellent. Germany now has as much power and influence as a walnut.
Well, it's more than Australia. :rolleyes:

Well, it's more than Australia. :rolleyes:

Not particularly.

Not particularly.
I would love for you to tell me what you could possibly mean.

And then, I would also like to know why the hell I should care how much "power and influence" any given country happens to have.

I would love for you to tell me what you could possibly mean.

Well, Australia has America on it's side. Aus also is dominant in the region, Oceania. Plus they have a shitload of important resources, uranium and wheat for example.

And then, I would also like to know why the hell I should care how much "power and influence" any given country happens to have.

You might not, but that's what's important.

Well, Australia has America on it's side. Aus also is dominant in the region, Oceania. Plus they have a shitload of important resources, uranium and wheat for example. Congratulations. Australia dominates a bunch of Islands...

Edit: And where'd you get the silly idea that Australia has America on its side? It's the other way round, and under the current administration, that "support" would be withdrawn the instant any real form of dissent shows up.

Well, Australia has America on it's side.
No, you mean that the other way around. On the other hand, America actually has serious commitments to NATO, of which Germany is a voting member.

Aus also is dominant in the region, Oceania.
And Germany is a dominant power in its region, Europe. Which might just be slightly more meaningful than Oceania (although I would hope I didn't offend anyone from Tonga right now).
And are you aware that there is a big tug-of-war going on in the Pacific between Taiwan and China for the favours of the island nations? And once a country aligns itself with China, there is remarkably little that Australia has to offer in terms of political weight.

Plus they have a shitload of important resources, uranium and wheat for example.
Yay. Mining! Getting your hands dirty! Waiting for rain!

Not to say that that can't be important...but there are plenty of sellers in this market, and in most cases that doesn't grant Australia particular influence, especially if they are just going to do what the Americans say anyways (ie India right now).

I think they were both a crime, Japan military capacity was almost destroyed, although not they're will to fight. A naval Blocus had had the same result although later, and that's the question: to save US lives and end the war quick enough, 'cause the cold war was near to start, not leaving the USSR the time to do this bloodbath. Stalin had not mind not kill millions of people, russians or japanese.

As Iztatepopotla said, was a good chees turn, but real people died for an strategical decission

And Germany is a dominant power in its region, Europe.

Well, that's just lying to yourself. France and the UK wield far more influence. In terms of dominance, I'd call Germany a second-and-a-half power (with first powers being France, UK, Russia, second powers Italy, Spain, etc.)

You almost would, wouldn't you?

Well, that's just lying to yourself. France and the UK wield far more influence.
Go ahead, prove it.

It's always "the big three".

Go ahead, prove it.

It's always "the big three".

It's more about cultural influence. France and Britain have their ex-empires and shit, while Germany has the cultural influence of a bottlecap. Plus they have a better military, and nuclear weapons. Germany has technology, but it's mostly economical and industrial, so when push comes to shove they'll be throwing i beams at the invaders.

Well, that's just lying to yourself. France and the UK wield far more influence. In terms of dominance, I'd call Germany a second-and-a-half power (with first powers being France, UK, Russia, second powers Italy, Spain, etc.)Yes. Germany is second and a half with 99 seats in parliament :rolleyes:

Even if Germany didn't come out of the war with much influence, they came out with a damn sight higher standard of living. I'd be happy with that if I were a German.

Yes. Germany is second and a half with 99 seats in parliament :rolleyes:

If you're talking about the EU parliment, that's just because Germany has a big population. If turkey or Russia joined, Germany would drop down.

Even if Germany didn't come out of the war with much influence, they came out with a damn sight higher standard of living. I'd be happy with that if I were a German.

Ehh. The rest of Western Europe has that too. Except southern Italy, if it's anything like that book I read.

It's more about cultural influence. France and Britain have their ex-empires and shit, while Germany has the cultural influence of a bottlecap. Plus they have a better military, and nuclear weapons. Germany has technology, but it's mostly economical and industrial, so when push comes to shove they'll be throwing i beams at the invaders.Learn a bit yourself, then. "Cultural influence" isn't limited to ex-empires. Germany's cultural influence has enabled good ties to the people that have the oil. And that is most certainly worth more than having French as a Quebec's major language.
And you seem to forget that Germany has more neighbors than any other country besides Russia and China, through which said "invaders" would have to get through first. And you most certainly don't need a powerful force to protect yourself, if push comes to shove.
When's the last time someone used a nuclear weapon?

If you're talking about the EU parliment, that's just because Germany has a big population. If turkey or Russia joined, Germany would drop down.Russia won't join and Turkey still has a lower population (since the last time I had to point that out to you).

Learn a bit yourself, then. "Cultural influence" isn't limited to ex-empires. Germany's cultural influence has enabled good ties to the people that have the oil. And that is most certainly worth more than having French as a Quebec's major language.

That's not really culture. It's more about bribing and kneeling before people.

And you seem to forget that Germany has more neighbors than any other country besides Russia and China, through which said "invaders" would have to get through first.

Having Poland as a defensive buffer doesn't fill me with confidence.

When's the last time someone used a nuclear weapon?

Well, that's my point. If Russia just up and decided to annex everything east of France, the world would be like "Fuck it, let them have it they got nukes!" When they go for France, then you have nuclear war.

Turkey still has a lower population (since the last time I had to point that out to you).

Not for very long.

I would please like a rational, reasonable discussion about the rights and wrongs of the use of the A-bomb in World War Two.

My personal beliefs on this matter are that America was right for the following reasons

- The US were aware that if they had invaded Japan it would have been exceptionally bloody and thus wished to minimise casulities for themselves, which is to be expected of any party at war

- The Allied nations gave Japan the oppotunity to surrender via the Potsdam decloration

- The US intentionally avoided targets such as Kyoto which had high level spiritual and cultural significence to the Japanese and instead targeted an industiral area

- The second bomb attack on Nagasaki was nessecary due to the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb attack. And again, Nagasaki was an industrial city.

- An extra three months of war and one more island invasion to actually bring about the surrender probably would have cost the lives of around 500,000 more Japanese, and the subsequent famine resulting from infrastructure collapse might have killed as many as 10 million.

But these are just my views, so lets get the discussion rolling

(Point of rule - If you believe your point to be backed up by evidence do your best to provide it)

I agree with you fully

If we had not drop those bombs, I might not be alive today. My grandfather might have been killed in the invasion of Japan, I might not even exist. I thank God for those two bombs.

Good for you, Vashutze. Back on topic.

That's not really culture. It's more about bribing and kneeling before people.It's not culture. It's cultural. But don't worry, just because you can't imagine other ways to get people to be your business partners other than bribing or kneeling before them doesn't mean that others can't be creative.
Having Poland as a defensive buffer doesn't fill me with confidence.Doesn't have to. You have the Pacific.
Well, that's my point. If Russia just up and decided to annex everything east of France, the world would be like "Fuck it, let them have it they got nukes!" When they go for France, then you have nuclear war.Wenn das Wörtchen "wenn" nicht wär, dann wär mein Vater Millionär.
And? If all of a sudden all money became worthless and the new currency was precise machinery Germany would rule the world. Just as likely.

i guess i can agree that it was needed in order to end the war.. but there should have been a more strategic target..military base or even the castle. but on city's with old people and children..ahh. pearl harbor was pearl harbor and not an attack on the city. it was a military strategic attack.

It's not culture. It's cultural. But don't worry, just because you can't imagine other ways to get people to be your business partners other than bribing or kneeling before them doesn't mean that others can't be creative.

Yes, I'm sure iran took one look at Germany culture and started pumping oil.

And? If all of a sudden all money became worthless and the new currency was precise machinery Germany would rule the world. Just as likely.

My point was that because most of Europe is cowardly, Germany needs a deterrant.

Yes, I'm sure iran took one look at Germany culture and started pumping oil.I'm sure Iran is the only place that pumps oil :rolleyes:
Quit confusing "culture" with "cultural power". Cultural power includes the current reputation German businesses have. "Culture", at least the way in which you've been talking about it, does not.

My point was that because most of Europe is cowardly, Germany needs a deterrant.That kind of thinking caused WWI. Germany has a deterrent: NATO.

That kind of thinking caused WWI. Germany has a deterrent: NATO.

NATO is to now as the League of Nations was to the 30s. Useless, except America. If someone invades the continent, expect Captain America to save the day. Again.

NATO is to now as the League of Nations was to the 30s. Useless, except America. If someone invades the continent, expect Captain America to save the day. Again.There's no one out there both capable and willing to invade the continent.

i guess i can agree that it was needed in order to end the war.. but there should have been a more strategic target..military base or even the castle. but on city's with old people and children..ahh. pearl harbor was pearl harbor and not an attack on the city. it was a military strategic attack.

Hiroshima was a millitary target. It was an industrial site producing weapons and many other pieces of war equipment.

Hiroshima was a millitary target. It was an industrial site producing weapons and many other pieces of war equipment.

This is true; but it wasn't just a military target. Purely military installations could have been chosen which would have still demonstrated the terrible power of the atomic device. Perhaps such targets were ruled out for other strategic reasons, in any case a decision was taken to target each city despite its dual military/civilian status.

There is an argument that the right choices were made; it was certainly a difficult choice to make and the action taken certainly led to a satisfactory response from Japan.

However, what I find a little misleading is the tendency to lable Hiroshima and Nagasaki as military targets full stop. This is a bit of a mis-representation and a little insulting to the thousands of civilians who lived and died there. They were definitely more defensible as legitimate targets than, for example, Dresden, but were not the equivalent of Pearl Harbour.

If we didn't drop the bombs we stood to lose the invasion force...

This is true; but it wasn't just a military target. Purely military installations could have been chosen which would have still demonstrated the terrible power of the atomic device. Perhaps such targets were ruled out for other strategic reasons, in any case a decision was taken to target each city despite its dual military/civilian status.

There is an argument that the right choices were made; it was certainly a difficult choice to make and the action taken certainly led to a satisfactory response from Japan.

However, what I find a little misleading is the tendency to lable Hiroshima and Nagasaki as military targets full stop. This is a bit of a mis-representation and a little insulting to the thousands of civilians who lived and died there. They were definitely more defensible as legitimate targets than, for example, Dresden, but were not the equivalent of Pearl Harbour.

While I agree the dropping of the bombs were not the same as Pearl Harbour, you have to understand the nature of Hiroshima as a millitary target. It was a millitary target because of its industrial nature. In other words the reason it was a millitary target was not because it was a port or a millitary instalation, but because it was producing the tanks, guns, shells etc which fueled the war machine. Japan was with its factories and munitions workshops, rather like many European countries, had all its workers homes built in and arround the factories. Thus if you wanted to stop the war machine from functioning, you had to destroy civilian homes because thats how the Japanese built them.

Well, that's just lying to yourself. France and the UK wield far more influence. In terms of dominance, I'd call Germany a second-and-a-half power (with first powers being France, UK, Russia, second powers Italy, Spain, etc.)

Britain does not see itself as European.

Needed to smash everything and you can't drop a bomb on the military targets because they were far too defended for the most part. Operation Ketsu-Go is what I am refering to, easier way to stop the army is smash its supplies and building operations.

i guess i can agree that it was needed in order to end the war.. but there should have been a more strategic target..military base or even the castle. but on city's with old people and children..ahh. pearl harbor was pearl harbor and not an attack on the city. it was a military strategic attack.

I see someone didn't get the memo that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a vital, repeat, vital strategic military targets.

This is true; but it wasn't just a military target. Purely military installations could have been chosen which would have still demonstrated the terrible power of the atomic device. Perhaps such targets were ruled out for other strategic reasons, in any case a decision was taken to target each city despite its dual military/civilian status.I disagree with the use of the bombs too, but Japan is rather densely settled, so I seriously doubt there are any military installations that are that remote.

This is true; but it wasn't just a military target. Purely military installations could have been chosen which would have still demonstrated the terrible power of the atomic device.

:rolleyes: You can't take out just one installation with an Atomic Bomb. There were many industries in Hiroshima as well as in Nagasaki. That was why they were chosen. For their military significance. Do I have to point that out to you again?

Perhaps such targets were ruled out for other strategic reasons, in any case a decision was taken to target each city despite its dual military/civilian status.

Which happened throughout the war. :rolleyes:

There is an argument that the right choices were made; it was certainly a difficult choice to make and the action taken certainly led to a satisfactory response from Japan.

It was either that or invade the island.

However, what I find a little misleading is the tendency to lable Hiroshima and Nagasaki as military targets full stop. This is a bit of a mis-representation and a little insulting to the thousands of civilians who lived and died there. They were definitely more defensible as legitimate targets than, for example, Dresden, but were not the equivalent of Pearl Harbour.

*sighs* I'm beginning to see you know next to nothing about these two cities.

While I agree the dropping of the bombs were not the same as Pearl Harbour, you have to understand the nature of Hiroshima as a millitary target. It was a millitary target because of its industrial nature. In other words the reason it was a millitary target was not because it was a port or a millitary instalation, but because it was producing the tanks, guns, shells etc which fueled the war machine. Japan was with its factories and munitions workshops, rather like many European countries, had all its workers homes built in and arround the factories. Thus if you wanted to stop the war machine from functioning, you had to destroy civilian homes because thats how the Japanese built them.


In the context of 'total war' as was being waged across the globe, it made strategic sense to target these locations.

However, I think the term 'military target' can only reasonably be applied to a military installaton. I accept that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate, strategic targets but not that they can be termed military ones. That's not to say attacking them was wrong, only that it wasn't exactly admirable.

Nuclear bombing these two cities was probably the smart thing to do; especially if you remove any sort of moral consideration from the decision (again I'm not in a position to really judge the people who had to make these terrible decisons)

:rolleyes:

snip

*sighs*

Do you have some kind of problem with simple comprehension?

In the context of 'total war' as was being waged across the globe, it made strategic sense to target these locations.

Correct

However, I think the term 'military target' can only reasonably be applied to a military installaton.

In today's time, I would agree with you. Back then though.....

I accept that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate, strategic targets but not that they can be termed military ones. That's not to say attacking them was wrong, only that it wasn't exactly admirable.

Do you know anything about the war at all or about the level of technology everyone had during World War II? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mi.itary ones. You stated the samething yourself. Now you are contradicting yourself. Make up your mouth.

Nuclear bombing these two cities was probably the smart thing to do; especially if you remove any sort of moral consideration from the decision (again I'm not in a position to really judge the people who had to make these terrible decisons)

Actually, I believe they talked about that before Truman ordered the bombing.

Do you have some kind of problem with simple comprehension?

My comprehension is fine. I noticed though that you didn't respond to what I said. I also noticed that you don't know what the term military target meant back during World War II. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing the terminology with someone who has studied the war, studied the actions, studied the politics involved in prosecuting this war.

My comprehension is fine. I noticed though that you didn't respond to what I said. I also noticed that you don't know what the term military target meant back during World War II. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing the terminology with someone who has studied the war, studied the actions, studied the politics involved in prosecuting this war.

He's right, the civilian casualities were unavoidable and were even USED by the japanese to make the american forces think about NOT attacking and killing them all when the invasion came....

? Right and wrong from who's view ? Mine is this.
For once, a sane view that doesn't reek of American propaganda, trying to whitewash and beautify the use of atomic bombs.

No, that is just excuse.
Indeed, it absolutely isn't The reason for using them was *only* to try them out and see how much devastation they would cause, and to show off to other countries what a great *weapon of mass destruction" they had.

Japan wanted 2 surrender. They only ask *one* thing. Promise U will not hurt the Emperor. The USA say? Oh? No conditions! Reject the offer. U want source? Wikipeda.org ---> The purported goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan.
That's very true, they *did* want to surrender, but the US refused because they were far too anxious on trying out their A-bombs, so they just said they wanted an unconditional surrender.

Well, it is kinda hard 2 surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima in only 3 days. Bcuz Hiroshima was so wiped out there was no info coming out of it. No phone lines, nothing. The bombing only 3 days apart. August 6 and August 9, 1945. And Japan still not surrender August 15, a week after the bombings.
That's right again, and they very well knew that! With absolutely *everything* destroyed in Hiroshima, there was *no* possible way of news getting out about it in the short period of three days.
If the US had actually cared, they had certainly waited longer than 3 days, but they dropped the second bomb that quickly so that they wouldn't have a chance to surrender in the meantime and foil their excuse for dropping the second bomb.

About they were industrial cities? The USA wiped out the industry in the other cities but the left it on purpose in those cities. Why? --> " It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb". So that is no excuse they *had* 2 use the A-Bomb on them. And? They blow the bomb up 2,000 feet above the city, bcuz they kno that way it will kill more people.
Indeed, as I said they were *very* anxious on trying out their new super weapon, and thus they left everything intact there for full effect!

No, that was not gonna happen, they *wanted* 2 surrender. They were *trying* 2 surrender 2 the USA ally, Russia. But, the USA was paranoid of Russia and did not want Russians in Japan, so? They dropped the bombs 2 try and speed it up 4 *that* reason.
The US loathed Russia with a passion, and continued to do so a long time after WWII (->Cold War), so this is no surprise.

Dresden Germany was firebombed for two nights and even they drop bombs 2 keep the firemen from putting out the fires, so there was a big firestorm. Dresden had *no* military or industrial stuff. No military reason, only civilian killing. Many extra civilans were there bcuz they all thought it would never B a target bcuz it was not a target in the past and the Germans make sure there is no reason 2 blow it up. It was just revenge 4 the Nazi bombing London. Did U kno that?
I doubt so. This wouldn't fit into the image of the oh-so-great Allies. The Nazis were certainly scum for all their atrocities, but with stuff like that the Allies were actually *no bit better* than the Nazis!

And so I think that besides keeping the Russians out, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-Bombed 4 revenge.
Yes, revenge was probably the reason why Japan was selected for testing their A-Bombs (and not Russia or Germany).

He's right, the civilian casualities were unavoidable and were even USED by the japanese to make the american forces think about NOT attacking and killing them all when the invasion came....

Have I stated anything different about the civilian casualties being unavoidable? It was either a couple hundred thousand or a choice of millions of civilians.

Have I stated anything different about the civilian casualties being unavoidable? It was either a couple hundred thousand or a choice of millions of civilians.

I'm on your side and yes. The japanese would have fought to the last man (as they had been doing) until the Emperor was captured....and even then they may not have stopped. The bombs were a messessary evil.

Heavenly Sex, the dropping of the A-Bombs was not purely for reasons of trying to test them out. Testing was of course one reason, but there were others. I'll link to the post where I listed most of the reasons I've come up with, hopefully in a fairly non-bias way, to save me writing it all again:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10536227&postcount=31

However, one point I would like to make. Why would the US drop an A-Bomb on Russia, a country that was an ally at the time, albeit an untrusted and suspicious ally, or Germany, a country that had already surrendered - and if before the surrender, had Russian forces within blast range of any such weapon, causing further conflict between the US and the USSR? That makes no sense.

My comprehension is fine. I noticed though that you didn't respond to what I said. I also noticed that you don't know what the term military target meant back during World War II. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing the terminology with someone who has studied the war, studied the actions, studied the politics involved in prosecuting this war.


And I'll notice you didn't respond at all to my earlier post.

And I'll notice you didn't respond at all to my earlier post.

We can keep this up all day if ya like? Of course I do have classes again beginning at 1:00 so we'll have to take a break for them.

So tell me, what do you define as a military target in World War II?

Heavenly Sex...

Your views are misleading and false truths. It was more complex then your black and white view of things.

Because I’m incredibly lazy, I’m not going to look through nine pages of posts to see if this came up before or not. If it did, sorry.

I stand to reason that the cause for dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had more to do with competing Russo-Anglo interests throughout the world (foremost in Europe, where we see the partition of the continent beginning as soon as Germany surrenders.) The reason I say this is because the viable alternative to invading the home islands (we agree the U.S. government wanted to avoid invasion at all costs) was to request Russian involvement in the war. Remember, Russia did involve itself in the conflict with Japan on 8 August, 1945, one day before the bombing of Nagasaki, resulting in the capture of the whole island of Sakhalin (the island was divided between a Russian north and Japanese south) as well as the Kuril Islands. However, this is an example of ‘too little too late,’ as the war would end just seven days later, and Russian involvement did not in that time have a drastic impact on Japanese foreign policy.

The idea goes that, as an alternative to invading the home islands (estimates range from between 25,000 – 1 million U.S. casualties) or to dropping the Bombs (costing the lives of over 200,000 Japanese) the U.S. could have allowed the Soviet Union to involve itself, as it did, presumably ending the war with the imminent threat of not only and Anglo-American invasion, but a Russia one. The Japanese had long been trying to effect a diplomatic agreement that would avoid war with the Russians, since 1942 according to my sources. Furthermore, if Japan’s former ally Germany is any indication, the threat of a Russian invasion is perhaps psychologically and politically more devastating than an actual invasion by the more peaceable British and Americans (Germany attempted to reach a separate surrender with the U.S. and Britain in order to allow her shattered government to continue to resist the Soviet advance.) It is my belief that the combined strain of a collapsing infrastructure, weakening political resolve, food shortages, and possible Soviet invasion would have pushed the Japanese people to surrender. The reason this was not carried out was to prevent the Russians (who had already begun to establish themselves across Eastern Europe) from gaining a political sphere of influence in the Pacific. We should note that this never happened because the U.S. pre-empted the Russians, gained influence over post-war Japan, and thereby limited the Soviet Union to the interior of the Asian continent (the Soviets did try to forge relations with China, but these failed.) Essentially, joining the war against Japan was Russia’s best chance of gaining a satellite in East Asia, and that failed, principally because of an overly aggressive U.S. policy regarding Japan, one which pre-empted any possible Soviet involvement.

Blah. Read 'The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth.' If anythign it's enlightening.

We can keep this up all day if ya like? Of course I do have classes again beginning at 1:00 so we'll have to take a break for them.


No, go back to class (actually you being a student explains a lot)

I simply can't be bothered.

No, go back to class (actually you being a student explains a lot)

:rolleyes: As I said, my class isn't till 100 Meaning 1 PM ET.which includes the city of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, D.C. Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto.

I simply can't be bothered.

Touchy touchy mr. UK! And here I thought Britian were a tolerent people. My faith has been shattered. This dismissal says alot about your intellect.

So tell me, what do you define as a military target in World War II?



A military target is a tactical target; all other targets are strategic targets.

A military target is a tactical target; all other targets are strategic targets.

So what do you call the Army Headquarters in Hiroshima?

I'm on your side and yes. The japanese would have fought to the last man (as they had been doing) until the Emperor was captured....and even then they may not have stopped. The bombs were a messessary evil.

So why didn't they fight to the last man?

If that was truly their attitude, a bomb or two changes nothing.

So why didn't they fight to the last man?

If that was truly their attitude, a bomb or two changes nothing.

Many did - Iwo Jima comes to mind for example. Plus there was a large Peace Party influence that was made inevitably strong after the detonation of the nuclear weapons.

So why didn't they fight to the last man?

Because their Emperor said that it was over. The military launched a coup and it was defeated thus ends World War II.

If that was truly their attitude, a bomb or two changes nothing.

The military commanders wanted to fight to the death. That is why they launched a coup to oust the Emperor and to continue the war.

Many did - Iwo Jima comes to mind for example. Plus there was a large Peace Party influence that was made inevitably strong after the detonation of the nuclear weapons.

A continued warfare could have achieved the same result. A truly dedicated population would not have stopped in the face of two bombs.

Because their Emperor said that it was over. The military launched a coup and it was defeated thus ends World War II.

The military commanders wanted to fight to the death. That is why they launched a coup to oust the Emperor and to continue the war.

Ah hah! so the people didn't want to fight to the last man, just the military commanders?

See, bombs or no, the japanese were Not willing to fight to the last man, as can be proven by the fact that they didn't.

A continued warfare could have achieved the same result. A truly dedicated population would not have stopped in the face of two bombs.



Ah hah! so the people didn't want to fight to the last man, just the military commanders?

See, bombs or no, the japanese were Not willing to fight to the last man, as can be proven by the fact that they didn't.

The military commanders were the ones who held the majority of the power in Japan. Or am I missing a Japanese People's Council that told the government what to do?

A continued warfare could have achieved the same result. A truly dedicated population would not have stopped in the face of two bombs.

*shudders*

Ah hah! so the people didn't want to fight to the last man, just the military commanders?

I suggest you actually look into the culture of Japan. Their soldiers are trained, Trained mind you, to obey their commanders orders without question. If theif commanders told them to fight to the last man, they would do it.

See, bombs or no, the japanese were Not willing to fight to the last man, as can be proven by the fact that they didn't.

What stopped them dude was the Emperor, NOT the military. AGAIN, the MILITARY launched a COUP to OUST the EMPEROR to keep the WAR GOING!

What stopped them dude was the Emperor, NOT the military. AGAIN, the MILITARY launched a COUP to OUST the EMPEROR to keep the WAR GOING!

Military =/= people

And since the emperor ordered it and people stopped, it seems that the Japanese were not willing to fight the last man.

Again, Japanese soldiers =/= Japanese civilians.

In fact, soldiers =/= civilians

So what do you call the Army Headquarters in Hiroshima?

By itself the Army Headquarters in Hiroshima was a tactical, military target.

In a modern, limited war we would expect such premises to be targetted by highly accurate devices, limiting damage to the immediate surrounding area.

Such technology was obviously not available in 1945, and in any case the circumstances were different, so 'strategic' bombing was employed.

Hiroshima, the city, with all its factories, military premises, residential and commerical areas, etc comprised a strategic target that cannot be truthfully or even appropriately described as 'military' alone.

That is all I was ever trying to say, which is not the same thing as denying that Hiroshima was a military target at all.

Military =/= people

And since the emperor ordered it and people stopped, it seems that the Japanese were not willing to fight the last man.

Again, Japanese soldiers =/= Japanese civilians.

In fact, soldiers =/= civilians

No the Emperor wasn't willing to sacrifice no more people for a war he knew was lost. He himself ORDERED the troops to stop fighting.

By itself the Army Headquarters in Hiroshima was a tactical, military target.

In a modern, limited war we would expect such premises to be targetted by highly accurate devices, limiting damage to the immediate surrounding area.

Such technology was obviously not available in 1945, and in any case the circumstances were different, so 'strategic' bombing was employed.

Hiroshima, the city, with all its factories, military premises, residential and commerical areas, etc comprised a strategic target that cannot be truthfully or even appropriately described as 'military' alone.

That is all I was ever trying to say, which is not the same thing as denying that Hiroshima was a military target at all.


I ca agree with you in part though Hiroshima was a military target in every since of the phrase.

No the Emperor wasn't willing to sacrifice no more people for a war he knew was lost. He himself ORDERED the troops to stop fighting.

And therefore the japanese were not willing to fight to the last man.

I ca agree with you in part though Hiroshima was a military target in every since of the phrase.


Partly this is just semantics, yes.

I believe Hiroshima merely contained military targets, you believe it essentially was one itself. The end result is the same, it got destroyed.

And therefore the japanese were not willing to fight to the last man.

Oh for God's sake, learn some Japanese Culture before you go off spouting unadutlered bullcrap.

The Military wanted to continue the damn war. Why do you think they launched a coup against Emperor Hirohito?

Partly this is just semantics, yes.

I believe Hiroshima merely contained military targets, you believe it essentially was one itself. The end result is the same, it got destroyed.

concurred. Why don't we agree to disagree over the terminology and get on with this debate :)

No, you are quite wrong, Seathorn. The Japanese people were, indeed, willing to fight to the death. Perhaps not to the last man, literally, but certainly until there were not enough people left to matter.

Understand, please, that to the Japanese of 1945, the words of the government were the words of the Emperor, and the Emperor was god. Literally. Hirohito, as direct descendent of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu, was divine, and was to be obeyed in all things.

Now, not all Japanese were Shinto, and not all of those who were, devout. But more than sufficient were that, had the government, speaking on behalf of the divine Emperor, said to continue fighting, they would have, though their cities burned, though there was no chance of victory, still they would have fought. And even those who were not believers would largely have gone along, because most people do just go along with the rest like good little sheep.

So, it was the fact that the Emperor chose to tell them to stop that ended the war. There was certainly no failure of will among the people.

Oh, and regarding the blockade - ultimately, that could not have worked. Japan in 1945, with so many of it's people dead or gone, was once agains self-sufficient in food production.

It's more about cultural influence. France and Britain have their ex-empires and shit, while Germany has the cultural influence of a bottlecap. Plus they have a better military, and nuclear weapons. Germany has technology, but it's mostly economical and industrial, so when push comes to shove they'll be throwing i beams at the invaders.
Well, all that crap about "cultural influence" aside, I would doubt that Germany is actually at all lagging behind in military technology.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/idz/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tiger/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/taifun/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f124/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
http://www.bwb.org/redaktionen/rue/bwb/www/cb_rue_bwb_zentral_www.nsf/vwContentByKey/W26K8A5Q717INFODE

And so on and so forth.

I am going to once again show definite proof that the japanese were not willing to fight to the last man.

They surrendered.

There, the fact that they surrendered is enough to show that they were indeed not willing to fight to the last man.

Therefore - atomic bombs or no bombs, the Japanese would eventually have surrendered, because like all humans, they did indeed have that possibility.

I am going to once again show definite proof that the japanese were not willing to fight to the last man.

They surrendered.

There, the fact that they surrendered is enough to show that they were indeed not willing to fight to the last man.

Therefore - atomic bombs or no bombs, the Japanese would eventually have surrendered, because like all humans, they did indeed have that possibility.

I'll point out once again that the culture of Japan told them to follow whatever the Emperor said. The emperor (whose word goes) ended the war.

In response, there was a coup by the military to keep it going.

I have a few things to say here:

1. tokyo was not a valid target because we had already burned it to the ground, and the emperor lived there and we didn't want to kill him. (more people died as a result of the fire bombing than the a-bomb)

2.Both of my grandpas are probably only alive 'cause we did not invade japan and they have both said this many times.

3.The dropping of the a-bomb brought on the cold war which was a time of amazing advances in medicine, electronics, weapons, etc. We would be where we are today if we had not dropped the a bomb.

4.the japanese only surrendered because of the emperor saw what the a-bomb could do and did not want that to happen again. but the military wanted to continue to fight. they even tried to stop the emperors surrender speach from airing to public. and even if the troops wanted to continue fighting they still would have litened to there emperor.

thats all i have to say.

I know that I'm just beating my head against a brick wall here, but… What the hell, I've been known to argue over minor points for days.

Once again then.

The Emperor Showa ( 昭和天皇 ). One thing to understand about him is that he was raised to be the absolute ruler of Japan. The laws of the Meiji Constitution gave him full and complete power. The Constitution wasn't designed to limit the power of the Imperial Throne as much as it was to expand and protect it. The way the system was designed; there were 3 competing factions within the Japanese government. One was the civilian government, which technically held power in all spheres except for the well defined Imperial sphere. The next was the military. According to the constitution, the civilian government was supposed to be supreme to the military high command; however, that was not actually the case. The final, and the real top dog, was the Imperial Throne. The Emperor had the final say in all cases. He was supposed to act as the balance within the government that kept the three factions working together. He had, under the Meiji Constitution, unlimited power in that regards. However, as Emperor, he was supposed to keep his nose out of politics. The Emperor was never supposed to interfere less it exposed the Imperial Person to criticism.

The saying in Japan is the rice stalk that bears the most, bows the lowest, and it was applied to the Emperor (Ironically, Prime Minister Koizumi is often criticized in Japan for failing to follow this method of wielding power, preferring to be far more open).

However, as the Emperor held all power, if he did act, there was nothing and no one to check him; which lead to the following situations.

During the Meiji Era, the Emperor Meiji was not an engaged ruler; he was never raised to rule, being the last of the Court Emperors during the Edo Period and the rule of the Tokugawa family. All the decisions were actually made by a ruling council composed of civilian leaders with business and political interests. Many of them had been in the vanguard of the Meiji Restoration and continued to exert considerable influence and power well into the Showa Era. The Taisho Era was also very hands off as the Emperor Taisho was ill and unfit to rule. The civilian government had (more or less) control with very little interference from the Imperial Palace. A democratic period, now referred to as the Taisho Democracy was in full swing, alarming the ruling council and the Imperial Palace that the people of Japan may see fit to remove their emperor, as the people of Russia had.

To fix this, a regency was put into place, the son of the Emperor Taisho, young Hirohito, was empowered as Prince Regent. The future Emperor Showa had been raised to rule. He was told grand stories of his grandfather, the Emperor Meiji. These stories painted the Emperor Meiji as larger than life, and a very engaged ruler, one who stated and enforced the Imperial Will. His education also reinforced the notion that his foremost responsibility as the ruler of Japan would be to his own Imperial Line and house, the protection thereof, the making sure it continued. The welfare of the People of Japan wasn't mentioned, except within the idea that all the people of Japan were one family with the Emperor as the father. What was good for him was good for the family. The Prince Regent quickly moved to reassert the powers and prerogatives of the Imperial House.

In doing so, he upset the balance. Part of the privileges of the Emperor was to be supreme commander of the military. Mid-level officers, filled with nationalistic rhetoric, used this to break free of civilian control. The argument was that civilian control of the military violated the Imperial Prerogative of supreme command. As the constitution clearly stated that the Imperial Throne held all powers, the civilian government found itself with less and less influence at an Imperial Court that treated it with suspicion after the Taisho Era's attempt at democracy.

When the Showa Era started with the death of the Emperor Taisho, the Showa Emperor assumed full titles as the contracted position of balancing the civilian government against the military, preserving the Imperial House and protecting it from being tainted, and having to do so without being seen as actually acting.

Shintoism and the Emperor as God
This is a little harder to understand. The Emperor Showa was viewed as a kami ( 神 ). Kami ARE NOT GODS, at least not in the western sense. They are far closer to the idea of natural spirits, ala Wicca or Native American religions. ANYTHING can be a kami.

Outside my school right now there's an interesting rock that is a kami. There's a small shrine there were a local priest leaves salt and sake for the kami every once in a while.

The notion of the Emperor as a god doesn't translate out well. The closest western cultures have gotten would be the divine right of kings, were kings were thought to have been touched by God and perhaps granted powers by God and placed in a position to rule. When the popes actually ruled would also be a close parallel. It is not s much as the Emperor was thought holy (which he was thought of), but that people viewed him as the chief priest of Shinto and a direct connection to the divine. They did not think he was an invincible god.

There are also some questions as to just how many Japanese actually believed in the divinity of the Emperor. Religion is taken extremely casually in Japan, or, rather, it is more correct to say that religion is such a part of the culture that it is hard to separate out those who actually believe, and those follow just because being Japanese means you follow it.

The Surrender:
The Showa Emperor knew that Japan was losing the war. The military high command also knew that it was losing the war. They knew going in that they could never win the war, they had hoped instead to force the US into dealing with Japan on their terms. Towards the end of the war, the Emperor Showa dispatched a diplomatic mission to Moscow, the USSR having signed a non-aggression pact with Japan. The hope of the Showa Emperor was that Stalin would broker a cease fire between the US and Japan. Stalin would, of course, do no such thing. The diplomatic mission knew this and informed the Emperor, only to be rebuffed and told to try harder.

Why didn't the US accept? Because what the Emperor Showa wanted was full agreement that not only would the Imperial House survive, but that it would retain all powers under the Meiji Constitution, all absolute powers in other words. He wasn't doing this for the people of Japan; he was doing so to preserve his throne (and hopefully, his place on it). If you recall, I stated that his first priority was to the preservation of the Imperial House and powers.

It would be akin to allowing Nazi Germany to surrender, but only on the condition that Hitler keeps all the powers he had.

The people of Japan:
They were totally in the dark about the war at this time. After the war, SCAP made it a point to educate the Japanese public about the conduct of Japan during the war and how badly the Japanese had actually lost. The result was massive shock and anger that this information had been kept from them. The people were starving, the harvests had been poor and the blockade kept food from reaching Japan. If you really want to know what life was like right before and right after I recommend you to watch Grave of the Fireflies (with a box of Kleenex) and to consider this quote from Gen Douglas Macarthur upon arriving in Japan, "Send me food, or by God send me bullets."

The feeding of Japan probably did more than anything to convince the general public in Japan that the Americans were not allied devils who would rape their daughters and eat their children.

It should be noted though that yes, many Japanese were scared of the allies. They were very scared of what would happen should the allies actually land in Japan, and they were very ready to attack Americans with whatever they had at hand. I've seen pictures (and talked to people) who drilled as junior high school students in the war with bamboo spears every day in the hopes of taking an American GI out. Beyond the psychological shock of seeing and having to kill women and children attacking you (BTW, the defense of the homeland plan was called "100 Million Deaths with Honor), but it would have de-peopled the Japanese islands.

Others have said how glad they were their grandfathers survived WWII, I have two grandfathers who survived and the family of my Japanese fiancée to be thankful for.

Hiroshima:
I cannot tell the actual story of Hiroshima. It WAS a military target. It was chosen because we THOUGHT there weren't any POWs there (we were wrong) and it wasn't completely destroyed.

I will note that the Japanese government was well aware that the city was gone, though they were confused as just ow this had happened. They themselves forced a complete news blackout on the area, causing more deaths and sufferings. I highly recommend you visit the Peace Museum of Hiroshima to fully understand what happened that day, and the days afterwards.

The images from there still haunt me.

What Happened:
It is actually hard to state 100% what happened because the personal papers of the Emperor Showa are currently under seal of the Imperial Household Agency and are unlikely to ever see the light of day, at least not on my lifetime. But, we can make a few good guesses based upon the papers of those around him.

The Emperor damn well knew what was going to happen. After the bombings, the Imperial Navy had joined the peace faction within the cabinet, however it didn't matter who had more number, but as to what the Emperor would decide. The Emperor Showa was still holding out for some sort of promise from America that the Imperial House would survive. He had at last dropped the demand that he retain the full powers. The Imperial Palace was growing more and more concerned that the suffering of the people would be blamed not on the military, not civilian government, but on the Imperial Throne. This lead to one last attempt by the Imperial Household to convince the Emperor Showa that it was time to cash it in.

Japan had requested of the Secretary of State of the United States of America to clarify the position of the Emperor if Japan accepted the Postdam Declaration. The Sec of State responded that the Emperor and government of Japan would be seconded and under the authority of SCAP. The Imperial Household deliberately mistranslated the note. The note in Japanese seemed to promise that the Emperor would be allowed to remain (it did no such thing) and that he would escape being charged with war crimes (it also did no such thing).

The bombings then, along with the shock of the USSR's sudden advance (removing the Emperor Showa's last hope of a brokered cease fire) coupled along with this mistranslated note swung the Emperor over to the peace faction, less he lose his throne.

The bombings also became a face saving measure as to why Japan was finally surrendering. They were necessary, but not in the way normally imagined.

For more information, please read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan.

'Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives'
General Dwight D.Eisenhower in The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953-1956: A Personal Account (1963) p.312-313

'Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives'
General Dwight D.Eisenhower in The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953-1956: A Personal Account (1963) p.312-313

So I have to ask, would he be saying that if he knew that hundreds of thousands of allied troops would die in an invasion that would've made D-day look like a skirmish?

'Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives'
General Dwight D.Eisenhower in The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953-1956: A Personal Account (1963) p.312-313

Yes, Eisenhower did indeed say that. Again, Corneliu is right in saying that he would never have said such a thing if Olympic occured. That point, in conjunction with NERVUN's excellent post, shows that the dropping of the weapons were neccessary. Immoral, but ultimately neccessary.

I know that I'm just beating my head against a brick wall here, but… What the hell, I've been known to argue over minor points for days.

Once again then.

< mega-snip >

For more information, please read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan.
Excellent exposition of the situation. Really. Thank you! :)

So I have to ask, would he be saying that if he knew that hundreds of thousands of allied troops would die in an invasion that would've made D-day look like a skirmish?
I quoted Eisenhower as a contemporary general who was thus privy to the kind of information that would enable him to make a comment based on tactical data, from the standpoint of purely logistical grounds. Of course it's impossible to know, but it seems very unlikely that Japan had the resources to continue fighting the war until the bitter end. I see the atomic blasts as a giant warning from Truman to the Soviet Union.

Quite apart from tactical issues, the moral point of dropping a bomb which they knew from tests would fry everyone within a large area on top of a city - it's comparable to the actions of those medieval leaders like Ivan the Terrible who slaugtered whole populations to ensure their ultimate victory. These things should not be acceptable even in the most vicious war. The defence that a greater good is being fought for, well what political mass-murderer hasn't used it?

I still maintain that it was a time of a different culture, of a different attitude towards the bomb. You must remember that during the fifties we talked of massive retaliation for even the tiniest Soviet Infraction. We viewed atomic bombs as useful tactical weapons to "give us more bang for our buck." The army built the famed Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka. They had a radically different view of atomic weapons than we have.

Even beyond that, the situation needed something to break it. And an invasion, would have been incredibly costly. Even if the Emperor had decided to capitulate, in the event of an invasion the odds are that the same officers who attempted a coup after the Nagasaki bomb would have tried again, and would have proven themselves successful. It's a tragic fact that the decision had to be made, but it had to.

It's also a unique study in retroactive deterrence. The Japanese thought we had more bombs than we did, and they were afraid we'd turn their country into a smoking, radioactive crater, and there would be no honor in how they'd die. No last bonzai charge, no giving oneself up for the Emperor, just a sudden, massive blast, and then vaporization. As such, they gave up.

I quoted Eisenhower as a contemporary general who was thus privy to the kind of information that would enable him to make a comment based on tactical data, from the standpoint of purely logistical grounds. Of course it's impossible to know, but it seems very unlikely that Japan had the resources to continue fighting the war until the bitter end. I see the atomic blasts as a giant warning from Truman to the Soviet Union.

How would he be privy to it when he was the Allied EUROPEAN Commander?

Quite apart from tactical issues, the moral point of dropping a bomb which they knew from tests would fry everyone within a large area on top of a city - it's comparable to the actions of those medieval leaders like Ivan the Terrible who slaugtered whole populations to ensure their ultimate victory.

As opposed to invading where millions of civilians would've died compared to the 200,000 or so that did die in the Atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You do know that a heck of a lot more died in the firebombings of Tokyo than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki right?

These things should not be acceptable even in the most vicious war. The defence that a greater good is being fought for, well what political mass-murderer hasn't used it?

I'll take the couple hundred thousand over the millions that would've died in the bombings in the lead up to the invasion. Also, the invasion plans also called for the possible use of *gasp* CHEMICAL WEAPONS! :eek:

Now let me ask you, if you lived in that time and had a son that died in the invasion and you found out that we had a weapon that would've ended the war that much sooner, would you be mad?

No, you are quite wrong, Seathorn. The Japanese people were, indeed, willing to fight to the death. Perhaps not to the last man, literally, but certainly until there were not enough people left to matter.
*snip*

Just to add comments from somebody who was there......

Years ago I met a Japanese Doctor who was a boy at the time of the war. Interesting man. Told stories about hiding from B-29 strikes, etc.

One thing I remembered was when he told how he was trained to fight with a spear for the impending American invasion.

They would have fought.

I agree that they would have thought. Remember that what the emperor said went. While the Japanese would have fought to the death for the emperor, they never heard his voice. The Japanese military knew this. They most likely planned to either kill or kidnap the emperor and have one of their own pretend the emperor. The Japanese people would not have known that it was an imposter and would obey him. That's probably why there was a coup. They wanted to fight while the emperor wanted peace.

the Japanese were the equivalent of human bees or human ants. They would have fought to the death for their emperor, their equivilant of a queen bee or queen ant. they were trained to have a hive mentality, at least when it came to protecting their emperor.

I agree that they would have thought. Remember that what the emperor said went. While the Japanese would have fought to the death for the emperor, they never heard his voice. The Japanese military knew this. They most likely planned to either kill or kidnap the emperor and have one of their own pretend the emperor. The Japanese people would not have known that it was an imposter and would obey him. That's probably why there was a coup. They wanted to fight while the emperor wanted peace.

Actually, the emperor has a distinct dialect than the rest of the population. If they heard the same dialect as those of Tojo and other people, they might be suspect.

the Japanese were the equivalent of human bees or human ants. They would have fought to the death for their emperor, their equivilant of a queen bee or queen ant. they were trained to have a hive mentality, at least when it came to protecting their emperor.

I think I can agree to this statement.

I agree that they would have thought. Remember that what the emperor said went. While the Japanese would have fought to the death for the emperor, they never heard his voice. The Japanese military knew this. They most likely planned to either kill or kidnap the emperor and have one of their own pretend the emperor. The Japanese people would not have known that it was an imposter and would obey him. That's probably why there was a coup. They wanted to fight while the emperor wanted peace.
No, no they wouldn't have. The LINE is important and could never be replaced. According to Shinto mythology (and as best as we can tell in the real world) the holders of the Chrysanthemum Throne have decended in a line unbroken. It's not the same as the kings of England, they would NOT remove the Imperial family (Look how much trouble the idea of not only putting a female on the thone, but allowing her to marry a commoner and their children accending to the throne is causing modern Japan).

During the attempted coup (which really wasn't an actual coup), they wanted to secure the personage of the Emepror and prevent the release of the tape. The idea being that if the Showa Emperor saw how much his troops wanted to fight, he would relent and stop the surrender. If not... they wouldn't have killed him, they would have installed one of his brothers (both were for the continuation of the war) as regent

the Japanese were the equivalent of human bees or human ants. They would have fought to the death for their emperor, their equivilant of a queen bee or queen ant. they were trained to have a hive mentality, at least when it came to protecting their emperor.
Bull shit. The Japanese are not insects, nor are they mindless automans. They are individuals who's culture places a higher value on the group and group harmony than the US. Don't insult them by stating so.

And if you don't believe me, come to Japan and I'll lock you in a room with my ninensei for a week. I'm sure you'll agree that they are individuals real quickly.

Actually, the emperor has a distinct dialect than the rest of the population. If they heard the same dialect as those of Tojo and other people, they might be suspect.
I assume you the court speech? Um, anyone can speak that, you just need to know how (and it's quickly dying, only the Imperial Household Agency, the Imperial family, and p0rn actresses speak it now).

And if you don't believe me, come to Japan and I'll lock you in a room with my ninensei for a week. I'm sure you'll agree that they are individuals real quickly.
But bring groin protection. :p

But bring groin protection. :p
Actually I'd say a pair of iron underwear would be best, they get ya coming AND going.

The US atomic bomb was developed for use against Nazi Germany but the War in Europe ended before the bomb was ready. The Germans had their own program, which if it had been completed first would have been all bad. There were even plans to rush in a “Dirty Bomb” to contaminate the drinking water in Berlin.

I think that with the climate of anger towards Japan, especially after facts started coming out of Japanese concentration camps of POW’s, that there wasn’t a lot of sympathy towards Japan at the time.

I honestly don’t think that Japan would have surrendered until they were over run in the same bloody way that Germany was. Germany certainly didn’t surrender when they knew they were beaten and Japan was even more nationalistic. A mass firebombing campaign over Japan made them no closer to surrender than having the Nimitz’s Island Hopping Strategy bring US troops to Okinawa.

The Bruce

One thing I can’t believe that no one else brought up is that the Japanese were also working to develop their own atomic bomb. It was kept hushed up for a long time and nobody really wanted to make much of it. For the Americans it was a huge blind spot in their intelligence they’d just as soon forget (like the Japanese buying a cyclotron from a US University before WWII). For the Japanese it wouldn’t look good when you’re trying to act like a victim of an atomic bomb attack if you were known to be working on one yourself.

Because of the confiscation and destruction of so much material from the Japanese Atomic Bomb project it’s difficult to know how close they were. An interview with a Japanese officer, despite coming from a reputable reporter, claiming to have witnessed a small test explosion is hard to verify. This because the island it was tested on is in North Korean waters and not accessible; and the Soviets rushed in at the end of WWII and stole all the equipment from nearby sites. Because in no way could the Japanese match the US in resources (the cost of the Manhatten Project was unbelievable) they just couldn’t develop this weapon first, except through gross incompetance.

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/ww2/atomicbomb.asp

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm


I recently watched a blow you away documentary on this, on the History Network. I'd heard things before, like the interception of a shipment of weapons grade material bound to Japan from Germany, but it was the first I heard of an actual Atomic Bomb Program. Of course with all the secret stuff being sifted through after the 50 limit was over there is probably even more disturbing things that will never be released, ever.

Germany certainly didn’t surrender when they knew they were beaten...
Ahem, are you sure?

Otherwise Berlin wouldn’t have been a battle, it would have been a peace treaty. They was a lot of fighting in Germany even after Hitler died and they attempted to surrender.

[QUOTE=Kryysakan]
I see the atomic blasts as a giant warning from Truman to the Soviet Union.

First, why the hell would we waste two bombs to threatent he soviets? It cost us 2 billion to learn ho wto make the bombs and millions more toactually maek them and we had about 4 tops and we'd waste two of them to show off to the soviets? Not to mention the danger of letting them know we have it. Very hard to steal something you don't know exsists.

I quoted Eisenhower as a contemporary general who was thus privy to the kind of information that would enable him to make a comment based on tactical data, from the standpoint of purely logistical grounds.

Ahh yes, the famous Ike quote. Because Eisenhower was soooo good at knowing when his enemy was beaten. Just look at the Winter of 1944. There was no way the Germans could do anything to hurt us.

Of course it's impossible to know, but it seems very unlikely that Japan had the resources to continue fighting the war until the bitter end.

Of course Japan had no more reasources. Well they had some but enough to keep on fighting. But this wouldn't have stopped them. They were very willing to to charge without weopons or to commit suicide. Or to kill those who wouldn't. Look at the battle of Okinawaw. You don't need modern weopons to kill.

Quite apart from tactical issues, the moral point of dropping a bomb which they knew from tests would fry everyone within a large area on top of a city - it's comparable to the actions of those medieval leaders like Ivan the Terrible who slaugtered whole populations to ensure their ultimate victory. These things should not be acceptable even in the most vicious war. The defence that a greater good is being fought for, well what political mass-murderer hasn't used it?

Bull shit. You know what's comparable to Ivan the terrible? The Rape of Nanking. 300,000 Chinese are butchered for no damn reason by Japan. I don't hear you complaining about that. We hit the cities becasue they were major millitary targets. The A-bombs at worst cause about 4.5% of WWII's dead. Nanking causes about 5.4%. Do the math.

Otherwise Berlin wouldn’t have been a battle, it would have been a peace treaty. They was a lot of fighting in Germany even after Hitler died and they attempted to surrender.
But that was agains the Russians. Indeed, once the Allies broke through after the Ardennes, all the Germans were doing was to hold back the Russians to allow as much of their territory and people to be taken by the Allies as possible.

Ultimately, being captured or conquered by the Russians wasn't all that much better than death (judging from my grandmother's statements...from Allenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allenstein) to Bavaria in Winter with a cart they had to pull themselves), so it was understandable that many fought on for a long time.

Plus, the real fanatics still believed that the Americans would realise the evils of Stalinism in time, ally themselves with Germany and then help fight the Russians, so they were just holding out.

The Werwolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf)-program on the other hand never found much support.

Ahh yes, the famous Ike quote. Because Eisenhower was soooo good at knowing when his enemy was beaten. Just look at the Winter of 1944. There was no way the Germans could do anything to hurt us.
But Eisenhower didn't know the German tanks would run out of fuel. They did find a real weak spot in the Allied lines, and without USAF to fight the war for them, Allied troops were pretty overwhelmed.

So if a real breakthrough would have been followed up by the tanks moving on, it would have ended the Allies' dreams of finishing the war. That sort of defeat would have meant that the Soviets take the whole of Germany, and instead of the Elbe, they would have met at the Rhine.

But Eisenhower didn't know the German tanks would run out of fuel. They did find a real weak spot in the Allied lines, and without USAF to fight the war for them, Allied troops were pretty overwhelmed.


Kind of like the German army having Rudel and his boys fighting the Russians for them.

You make it sound like it was a sign of weakness? Sounds smart to me.

Never mind the fact the airforce wasn't flying 24/7.

A guy I met was an anti-tank gunner in third army. Brace yourself, they actually took some tanks out themselves.

He said you were pretty retarded to take that job as you had to wait until the tank was about to roll over you before you could take it out. ;)

The man was 85 years old and had a steel handshake.

Kind of like the German army having Rudel and his boys fighting the Russians for them.
I don't think you can compare the two in terms of scale.

You make it sound like it was a sign of weakness? Sounds smart to me.
It certainly was, but it takes a lot away from the achievements of the Allied ground troops. Units like the Panzerlehrdivision absolutely pwned every Allied soldiers they came across, but they could do nothing against attacks from above.
The reason the Ardennes Offensive was even considered was because of the bad weather. It was a threat to the Allies until the weather cleared up, and then the planes came back and defeated the offensive.

I don't think you can compare the two in terms of scale.

Well he destroyed what was it 600 armored vehicles and he said he trained 60 men that had 100 or so. They made a decent job of it.

But nice effort of side stepping the point.


It certainly was, but it takes a lot away from the achievements of the Allied ground troops. Units like the Panzerlehrdivision absolutely pwned every Allied soldiers they came across, but they could do nothing against attacks from above.


Sounds like a smart approach doesn't it.

But nice effort of side stepping the point.
The Luftwaffe gave some support. It became steadily less, and considering the sheer amount of materiel used on the Eastern Front, 600 isn't that much.

But that didn't mean that the ground forces didn't do a lot more. You can't say the same thing of the Allied ground forces on the Western Front.

Sounds like a smart approach doesn't it.
As I said, yes.

But it could also be written as "Allied ground forces let the air forces fight the battle for them".

The Luftwaffe gave some support. It became steadily less, and considering the sheer amount of materiel used on the Eastern Front, 600 isn't that much.


Let's see 600 + 60 x 100

And that's not counting all the other pilots that were under 100.

German tanks couldn't stand up to the Russians so they had ot make up for it in other places.



But that didn't mean that the ground forces didn't do a lot more. You can't say the same thing of the Allied ground forces on the Western Front.

And your numbers come from where?


As I said, yes.

But it could also be written as "Allied ground forces let the air forces fight the battle for them".

It must really bug you that the Americans and Brits beat the germans in France doesn't it?

But hey go ahead and preech the american soldier just sat around on his thumb waiting for the air force to destory the german army if that makes you feel better.

Another reason two bombs were dropped:

To scare the U.S.S.R

I do agree with the dropping of the bombs however.

Ahem, are you sure?

Well they did fight the USSR street to street in Berlin. I know they were surrendering to the Allied Forces in the West and the troops in the East were covering the withdrawal west of civilians and troops alike I believe.

I assume you the court speech? Um, anyone can speak that, you just need to know how (and it's quickly dying, only the Imperial Household Agency, the Imperial family, and p0rn actresses speak it now).

Yea I was. Thanks for the info :)