NationStates Jolt Archive

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan? Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used? Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons? There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run. All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.

The bombings were unnecessary simply because Japan was already defeated, but no, we had to demand unconditional surrender. A peace could have been negotiated, I’m sure.

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan?
Well, I suppose it must be because those were innocent civilians for the most part.
But you're right, there hasn't been a Hiroshima-thread for a month or something. :p

Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used?
I still believe that a demonstration would have had the same effect on the Japanese leadership if it had been in a less populated area.

Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons?
I think it ultimately was hundreds of thousands. But you are right, more people were killed by dropping phosphorus on Japanese cities.
I don't think you can seperate the two anyways.

There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run.
Why is that so universally accepted? Seriously, no war was ever won because of bombing. The Japanese were defeated militarily, on the battlefield.

All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.
Possible, yes. But regardless of whether it was 'justified' or 'the right thing to do', it was still wrong.

If I had to save a whole bus full of people by killing one innocent person, and I did it - would that mean that I shouldn't attend that person's funeral? Shouldn't I still appologise and try to explain to his family?

The bombings were unnecessary simply because Japan was already defeated, but no, we had to demand unconditional surrender. A peace could have been negotiated, I’m sure.

We were trying to learn from the mistakes of WWI. Unconditional surrender would let that country know that they WERE defeated. Besides it is my understanding that Japan would not consider any surrender anyway so without the bomb it would have required a long war by conventional means killing many more people.

Soultion Minus A-Bomb and Invasion:

Blockade. We had the Japanese fleet utterly destroyed, if we moved all of the fleet and blockaded Japanb, they could've survived for months at most before giving up.

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan? Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used? Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons? There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run. All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.


i suppose a negative and positive of using the bomb, was its long term political effect

would the bomb create a dangerous precendent and open a pandera's box on weapons of truly devasting power able to wipe out civilisation, therefore killing more peoplr then conventional weapons.

however the use of the bomb, showed the world the destructive effect. countries in the future functioned on a system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and didnt use them. effectively stopping nuclear holocaust.
if the bombs had been used for the first time (rather than nag) then the world would be gone.
the human race (so far) has learnt its warning!!

We were trying to learn from the mistakes of WWI. Unconditional surrender would let that country know that they WERE defeated.
Ever hear of "victory without defeat." On of Wilson's greatest ideas. Too bad he didn't follow through on it so he could get the rest of the world to agree on the Leauge of Nations, which he no doubt planned for the US to dominate. Germany continued war becasue it was subjected to an unfair treaty to which it had no say in. A mutual peace between Japan and the US could have been acheived. Political leaders are all rational to some extent. They must be, in order to obtain and mantain power.
Besides it is my understanding that Japan would not consider any
Propaganda.
surrender anyway so without the bomb it would have required a long war by conventional means killing many more people.
Mutual peace wouldn't have required an invasion of Japan.

however the use of the bomb, showed the world the destructive effect. countries in the future functioned on a system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and didnt use them. effectively stopping nuclear holocaust.

I guess this is an in to throw in the theory that the bomb was used with a secondary point to warn the Soviet Union what would happen should they decide to get greedy and try for more territory in Europe?

Germany continued war becasue it was subjected to an unfair treaty to which it had no say in. .

Germany decided it didn't actually lose because it was only an armistice instead of an actual treaty. They quickly decided that it was the subversive elements in their country that casued their defeat and not from the fault of their military. Who wants to listen to reason that it was the new American bodies that caused them to lose? Japan could easily come to a similar conclusion and without a complete defeat they could rebuild their military and decide to try again.

Forget Hiroshima and Nagazaki, after capturing Okinawa, the US pursued a plan of indiscriminate bombing of civilians cities. There is no other definition of it than terrorism.

Here are some stats (http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html) that were put forth in the movie The Fog of War.

Imagine if Chattanooga was completely destroyed.

i suppose a negative and positive of using the bomb, was its long term political effect

would the bomb create a dangerous precendent and open a pandera's box on weapons of truly devasting power able to wipe out civilisation, therefore killing more peoplr then conventional weapons.

however the use of the bomb, showed the world the destructive effect. countries in the future functioned on a system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and didnt use them. effectively stopping nuclear holocaust.
if the bombs had been used for the first time (rather than nag) then the world would be gone.
the human race (so far) has learnt its warning!!

I would have to agree with this. I think if a nuclear weapon hadn't been used on a city, then a nuclear holocaust would have been much more likely. Everyone could see the immediate & long term effects of one bomb on one city, so could figure out what the entire arsenal would do to the whole world.

Germany decided it didn't actually lose because it was only an armistice instead of an actual treaty.
Ever heard of Versailles? The only ones who didn’t sign it were the US.
An armisice ended WWII as well, presented by Jodl, who was not a political leader.

I guess this is an in to throw in the theory that the bomb was used with a secondary point to warn the Soviet Union what would happen should they decide to get greedy and try for more territory in Europe?


no, i dont think that this was a consciouss plan at the time on behalf of america, cause they didnt know the true extent of the destruction, and the primary abjective was to end the war. it was however an inevitable effect of using it.
this theory is only circulated due to the benefit of hindsight

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan? Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used? Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons? There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run. All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.


hell..should of hit tokyo instead..not only defeat them, but take their spirit as well.../trying to be a badass

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan? Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used? Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons? There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run. All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.

I'm not terribly fond of bombs, seeing as I'm a pacifist. But Hiroshima and Nagaski were particularly horrible because they killed many innocent civilians and served no real purpose within the war.

I guess this is an in to throw in the theory that the bomb was used with a secondary point to warn the Soviet Union what would happen should they decide to get greedy and try for more territory in Europe?

Ah, the much-feared "warning bomb." Gotta love scare tactics.

I'm not terribly fond of bombs, seeing as I'm a pacifist. But Hiroshima and Nagaski were particularly horrible because they killed many innocent civilians and served no real purpose within the war.

My opening post covers what I think of this arguement. I suppose we could have given them a warning by using the bomb in a non-populated area but the goal was to end the war as soon as possible and there were only a limited amount of the new weapons. The decision was made that it was the only way to end the war immediately. As I said they would have been bombed conventially anyway killing at least the same amount of civilians.

My opening post covers what I think of this arguement. I suppose we could have given them a warning by using the bomb in a non-populated area but the goal was to end the war as soon as possible and there were only a limited amount of the new weapons. The decision was made that it was the only way to end the war immediately. As I said they would have been bombed conventially anyway killing at least the same amount of civilians.

Wasn't the war already over?

hell..should of hit tokyo instead..not only defeat them, but take their spirit as well.../trying to be a badass
They already had. More than a hundred thousand people died when they dropped phosphorus on the city.

Wasn't the war already over?

The Japanese navy was pretty much history but their army was still intact. Invasion may have been neccessary. Maybe a blockade would have worked but either way the war was not yet over.

The Japanese navy was pretty much history but their army was still intact. Invasion may have been neccessary. Maybe a blockade would have worked but either way the war was not yet over.

In Canada, they teach us that Hiroshima was superflous. But then, all war is, IMHO.

It had a definite and bottom-line definition of what the bomb would do and what it would cause. Nobody could use spin to argue use of the bomb on a regular basis, nobody could use propaganda to say they were justified in wanting and using the bombs after what happened to H&N.

Imagine if the Zupruder(sp?) film had seen Oswald in the depository, gotten a close-up, with an admission, and an explanation on how he did it and all the little details it entailed. Or that the film had a foreword by several government agents admitting how they planned a cou(sp?) because of Kennedy's war policies.

It's that direct, it's that definite. It's undeniable, it's undebatable. The bomb's effect was horrible, with no direct positives, though good may come from the result (defeat of Japan).

It had a definite and bottom-line definition of what the bomb would do and what it would cause. Nobody could use spin to argue use of the bomb on a regular basis, nobody could use propaganda to say they were justified in wanting and using the bombs after what happened to H&N.

Imagine if the Zupruder(sp?) film had seen Oswald in the depository, gotten a close-up, with an admission, and an explanation on how he did it and all the little details it entailed. Or that the film had a foreword by several government agents admitting how they planned a cou(sp?) because of Kennedy's war policies.

It's that direct, it's that definite. It's undeniable, it's undebatable. The bomb's effect was horrible, with no direct positives, though good may come from the result (defeat of Japan).

I wouldn't nessacarily call the defeat of Japan a good thing. The government policies etc. were not things I always agree with, but war is never right. Defeating a country in a war isn't a solution, and isn't something to be proud of. All countries involved in WWII should be ashamed of the violent ideals they celebrated.

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.

The bombings were unnecessary simply because Japan was already defeated, but no, we had to demand unconditional surrender. A peace could have been negotiated, I’m sure.

That would lead to a war 10 or 20 years later, and would you let the nazis stay in power? Japan comminted war crimes on a much larger scale than the Germans ever did.

In Canada, they teach us that Hiroshima was superflous. But then, all war is, IMHO.
Interesting. Do they also teach you the truth that Canadian soldiers were considered expendable by British officers?

That would lead to a war 10 or 20 years later, and would you let the nazis stay in power? Japan comminted war crimes on a much larger scale than the Germans ever did.
And Stalin committed more crimes against humanity than either of them, combined, yet he was our ally.

And Stalin committed more crimes against humanity than either of them, combined, yet he was our ally.
Only out of neccesity. They other option was to fight him as soon as the the Axis were beat, and I know nobody in their right mind wanted that.

If I had to save a whole bus full of people by killing one innocent person, and I did it - would that mean that I shouldn't attend that person's funeral? Shouldn't I still appologise and try to explain to his family?

Not if he's the guy who tried to blow up the bus.

Not if he's the guy who tried to blow up the bus.
What in hell's name are you talking about? Show me one single war criminal who got killed when they dropped the bombs.

The people who got killed were by en large innocent.

Only out of neccesity. They other option was to fight him as soon as the the Axis were beat, and I know nobody in their right mind wanted that.
No the other option was for FDR to pick the axis as the side to support in his quest for American domination. The allies were just more geographically and historically convenient.

What in hell's name are you talking about? Show me one single war criminal who got killed when they dropped the bombs.

The people who got killed were by en large innocent.

I'm talking about the countries as a whole. In Japan escecialy they knew what type of crimes were being committed. One of their headlines cheered a beheading contest between two officers. (Read this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067941424X/103-9132102-0467831?v=glance&n=283155) Also Japan was going to fight to the death. Don't think so? Many Germans (Hitler Youth) fought to the death when they had no hope of winning and that's after 12 years of brainwashing. Japan had several hundred years of brainwashing that surrender was not an opition. Everyone in Japan was as good as dead before we dropped the bomb. All most everyone who died would have been killed in the invasion.

I'm talking about the countries as a whole.
Why?

In Japan escecialy they knew what type of crimes were being committed.
Read Nervun's post. He knows most about this, more than all of us.

Why?


Read Nervun's post. He knows most about this, more than all of us.

Why what?

Fine. I still say they knew at least a little bit but he does know more about it than I do.

snip

Regarding all of this, would you say that the targeting of civilian populations by Allied "strategic bombing" influenced the surrender of Japan in any significant way?

Interesting. Do they also teach you the truth that Canadian soldiers were considered expendable by British officers?

As far as the Battle of Hong Kong goes, yes. But we also learned about Canada gaining a national identity in battles such as D-Day and the liberation of the Netherlands.

Why what?
Why would you want to talk about countries? Countries aren't organisms.

The only thing that counts is who got killed. And those who were killed were mostly innocent civilians. Excusing that by talking about 'countries' in a context like this is bullshit.

Why would you want to talk about countries? Countries aren't organisms.

The only thing that counts is who got killed. And those who were killed were mostly innocent civilians. Excusing that by talking about 'countries' in a context like this is bullshit.

All right fine. Battle of Okinawa 62,000+ civillians are killed. Why? Three main reasons.
They killed themselves
The Japanese aremy killed them
They got killed in the cross fire.

All of these are well ducumented. Look it up.
Do I think we should bomb civilians durring war time? Not if it can be avoided. The fact was the obly way to hit industry with any chance of success was to destroy the whole city. Both sides did it because they had to. Granted there were cases where it was unessicary but the A-bomb wasn't one of them. If you were Truman would you waste two out of three of the most powerfull weopons ever built? Not only that but declassify and tell the Soviets we have the bomb! Come and take it! It makes no sense why he would do that. Japan wasn't ready to surrender and the only other option was an invasion that would have killed millions. Truman's job was to the United States of America not some civilians in Japan. OR do you think the 100,000+ Americans who would die are worthy of living? Not to mention the millions of Japanese.

As far as the Battle of Hong Kong goes, yes. But we also learned about Canada gaining a national identity in battles such as D-Day and the liberation of the Netherlands.
What about Operation Jubilee?

Looking past all the chatter the U.S. was left with three choices.
1. A land invasion that would have cost the U.S. and the Japanese and estimated million lives at least. Japanese civilians were all trained to kill U.S. personel and that if they didnt that the U.S. personel would have killed and raped them.
2. A blockade would have starved ( more then they were already) the japanese into submission. That starvation would have killed plenty of civilians indescrimenantly and probably at a worse cost.
3. The nuke killed approxiametly 80,000 people in Hiroshima alone, and the radiation continues to affect around 5,000 people a year but given the other choices the nuke was probably the better of the options.

Lets not forget that the Soviets were knocking at Japans door. Had the Soviets invaded then the U.S. would have to follow suit. The invasions would have caused heavy or almost complete casualties on all sides and the if the Soviet occupation of Germany is any indication Then the Japenese would have been abused horribly by them. The country would have been split in half. One controled by the U.S. and one by the Soviets. The cold war reprocussions there would cause a lot more tensions and fuel the possibility for a nuclear world war.

All of these are well ducumented. Look it up.
I'm quite aware, thank you.

And by the way, one could interpret the fact that they killed themselves as meaning that if things went down to the wire, Japanese civilians are still civilians and prefer to end their lives in "peace", rather than get their bodies mangled by a machine gun.

Do I think we should bomb civilians durring war time? Not if it can be avoided. The fact was the obly way to hit industry with any chance of success was to destroy the whole city.
And yet, the evidence seems to suggest that industry was never seriously hurt by bombardment. I can only talk about Germany in any detail, but the only bombing that really showed some sort of effect were the attacks on oil fields in South Eastern Europe.

Truman's job was to the United States of America not some civilians in Japan.
And that is where the problem lies.

And I'm still looking for anyone to actually give me the reason why it isn't necessary to actually appologise and make amends for the bombing, in both countries. Yes, one can argue that it was necessary. Yes, one can argue that it saved more lives than it destroyed.

But how does that make the murder of these civilians any better? Why does it mean that their lives aren't worth the acknowledgement by the Allied governments?

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan? Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used? Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons? There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run. All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.

*steals Utracia's computer and hacks his password to prevent this sort of thread from re-appearing agian*

Soultion Minus A-Bomb and Invasion:

Blockade. We had the Japanese fleet utterly destroyed, if we moved all of the fleet and blockaded Japanb, they could've survived for months at most before giving up.

A blockade was already in effect prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their people were already starving and still the military didn't give in.

Germany decided it didn't actually lose because it was only an armistice instead of an actual treaty. They quickly decided that it was the subversive elements in their country that casued their defeat and not from the fault of their military. Who wants to listen to reason that it was the new American bodies that caused them to lose? Japan could easily come to a similar conclusion and without a complete defeat they could rebuild their military and decide to try again.

WRONG!!! There was a treaty that was signed that assigned the full blame to Germany.

Wasn't the war already over?

No it wasn't. The outcome was not in doubt though but no, the war was not over.

In Canada, they teach us that Hiroshima was superflous. But then, all war is, IMHO.

Typical Canadians. I guess they do not understand the Culture of Japan during the 30s and 40s.

WRONG!!! There was a treaty that was signed that assigned the full blame to Germany.

So? That doesn't change how the people of Germany felt. Besides it wasn't the fault of Germany anyway but the whole alliance system and a crazy Serbian who decided to kill some Austrian royalty.

Only out of neccesity. They other option was to fight him as soon as the the Axis were beat, and I know nobody in their right mind wanted that.

Some of the allied commanders did.

What in hell's name are you talking about? Show me one single war criminal who got killed when they dropped the bombs.

The people who got killed were by en large innocent.

Either you have not paid attention in any of these threads or you refuse to accept the fact that THEY WERE TRAINING WITH WEAPONS TO REPEL AN INVASION!! That does NOT make them Innocent people.

I'm quite aware, thank you.

And by the way, one could interpret the fact that they killed themselves as meaning that if things went down to the wire, Japanese civilians are still civilians and prefer to end their lives in "peace", rather than get their bodies mangled by a machine gun.

I don't know forcing oneself to drowned or jabbing a knife through one's stomach doesn't seem to be peaceful.


And yet, the evidence seems to suggest that industry was never seriously hurt by bombardment. I can only talk about Germany in any detail, but the only bombing that really showed some sort of effect were the attacks on oil fields in South Eastern Europe.
But this was the first war in which bombing like this had been done. No one knew that it wouldn't work too well. It still had effect, but it didn't completely wipe them out.


And that is where the problem lies.
And I'm still looking for anyone to actually give me the reason why it isn't necessary to actually appologise and make amends for the bombing, in both countries. Yes, one can argue that it was necessary. Yes, one can argue that it saved more lives than it destroyed.
But how does that make the murder of these civilians any better? Why does it mean that their lives aren't worth the acknowledgement by the Allied governments?

Because winners write history. Also it would offend the people who were dragged away from their families just because a few nations wanted to play with the lives of millions. Do I feel bad about the people we killed? Well not that much. I feel bad when anyone is suffering but if the people who are causing most of the suffering are hurt I don't care as much. Finally I'd accept the idea of an apology a little more if they hadn't started it and if tehy would write text books that accuratly depict what the Japanese forces did in China.

That would lead to a war 10 or 20 years later, and would you let the nazis stay in power? Japan comminted war crimes on a much larger scale than the Germans ever did.
They did not. Yes, I know all about the Rape on Nanking and Unit 753, but it was not as big as the Final Solution or as systematic.

Some of the allied commanders did.
I said in their right mind. We all know Paton was crazy.

Regarding all of this, would you say that the targeting of civilian populations by Allied "strategic bombing" influenced the surrender of Japan in any significant way?

Which strategic bombing are you talking about?

Typical Canadians. I guess they do not understand the Culture of Japan during the 30s and 40s.
Don't start with culture. Nervun's covered it, and he understands it more than you do.

Ultimately they would have followed the word of the emperor. Had the emperor changed his decision, bombs or not, they'd have followed him. The military did try to prevent his decision from reaching the public, but they wouldn't have had the chance to contradict them without committing suicide.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming that the militarists were losing their footing with the emperor all throughout 1945 - and objectively speaking, I don't see how you could make the point that without the nukes, the emperor would not have ended the war some time in those weeks.

So? That doesn't change how the people of Germany felt. Besides it wasn't the fault of Germany anyway but the whole alliance system and a crazy Serbian who decided to kill some Austrian royalty.

I agree with you 100%. You'll get no arguement out of me.

They did not. Yes, I know all about the Rape on Nanking and Unit 753, but it was not as big as the Final Solution or as systematic.

What about the enslavement of millions (I'm not sure how many exactly) of Korean women as sex slaves? I think that counts pretty high on the war crime scale. And yes the Germans were much more systematic.

I'm talking about the countries as a whole. In Japan escecialy they knew what type of crimes were being committed. One of their headlines cheered a beheading contest between two officers. (Read this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067941424X/103-9132102-0467831?v=glance&n=283155) Also Japan was going to fight to the death. Don't think so? Many Germans (Hitler Youth) fought to the death when they had no hope of winning and that's after 12 years of brainwashing. Japan had several hundred years of brainwashing that surrender was not an opition. Everyone in Japan was as good as dead before we dropped the bomb. All most everyone who died would have been killed in the invasion.
*sighs* Ignoring the part of the cultural bit, actually the Japanese public was kept in the dark far more than the German population was. One of the things that SCAP did after the war was run a show called "Now it can be told" about crimes and the events of the war that the general population was not aware of. The reaction of the Japanese public was extream anger at what had occured. They didn't know, they didn't really know at all.

I said in their right mind. We all know Paton was crazy.

And yet he basically took Sicily by himself. he knew how to motivate his men and he knew how to attack his opponets. He actually was in his right mind.

What about the enslavement of millions(?) of Korean women as sex slaves? I think that counts pretty high on the war crime scale. And yes the Germans were much more systematic.
MILLIONS?

Estimates of the number of comfort women during the war range from 80,000 to 200,000, with testimony by surviving comfort women suggesting a number at the higher end of the scale.
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

Hardly millions. Too many, far too damn many yes, but hardly millions of Korean women.

*sighs* Ignoring the part of the cultural bit, actually the Japanese public was kept in the dark far more than the German population was. One of the things that SCAP did after the war was run a show called "Now it can be told" about crimes and the events of the war that the general population was not aware of. The reaction of the Japanese public was extream anger at what had occured. They didn't know, they didn't really know at all.

All right fine. No point in arguing with someone who knows more about it than I do.

Don't start with culture. Nervun's covered it, and he understands it more than you do.

I know he does. I also know abit about the culture during that time myself.

Ultimately they would have followed the word of the emperor. Had the emperor changed his decision, bombs or not, they'd have followed him. The military did try to prevent his decision from reaching the public, but they wouldn't have had the chance to contradict them without committing suicide.

If the coup had succeeded, millions of people would've died in an invasion because we would've had no choice but to procede with it.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming that the militarists were losing their footing with the emperor all throughout 1945 - and objectively speaking, I don't see how you could make the point that without the nukes, the emperor would not have ended the war some time in those weeks.

And you do not know that he wouldn't either.

MILLIONS?


Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

Hardly millions. Too many, far too damn many yes, but hardly millions of Korean women.

I could have sworn it was more than that. I don't think it was as little as 80,000, not by a long shot.

Either you have not paid attention in any of these threads or you refuse to accept the fact that THEY WERE TRAINING WITH WEAPONS TO REPEL AN INVASION!! That does NOT make them Innocent people.
That's quite an interesting leap of logic, don't you think?

Does that mean, by the way, that the people of London and Coventry were legitimate targets because many might have trained in the Home Guard?

I don't know forcing oneself to drowned or jabbing a knife through one's stomach doesn't seem to be peaceful.
There is the cultural thing. Ultimately, no matter which method you use though, killing yourself is a more peaceful experience than throwing your body in the meatgrinder of war.

But this was the first war in which bombing like this had been done. No one knew that it wouldn't work too well. It still had effect, but it didn't completely wipe them out.
Well, not really. The Nazis had tried it before, and attempts at it were also done in WWI with the Zeppelins and that sort of thing.

Because winners write history. Also it would offend the people who were dragged away from their families just because a few nations wanted to play with the lives of millions.
That is a pretty offensive thing to say. The US government wanted to play as well, otherwise they wouldn't have been fighting.
And nonetheless, the death of a soldier is always more excusable than the death of a civilian. For a soldier chooses to go to war, chooses to take the risk of dying.

Do I feel bad about the people we killed? Well not that much. I feel bad when anyone is suffering but if the people who are causing most of the suffering are hurt I don't care as much.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that not every Japanese person is the same?

Finally I'd accept the idea of an apology a little more if they hadn't started it and if tehy would write text books that accuratly depict what the Japanese forces did in China.
Already run out of arguments, have you?

a) No matter how often you repeat it, the people of Hiroshima did not start anything.
b) The textbooks were written by an isolated group of right-wingers, are not in use in any school I believe, and do in no way reflect the feeling of the Japanese populace about the war.

Regarding all of this, would you say that the targeting of civilian populations by Allied "strategic bombing" influenced the surrender of Japan in any significant way?
Very hard to say. On one hand, it DID provide forces that caused the Imperial Household to be worried. The thought that the Japanese people would blaim the Imperial Throne for the results of the war and the suffering caused by was one of the major driving factors behind the surrender. And it did remove a lot of military instilations (The Japanese having not heard of this concept called urban planning, things tend to get built wherever :p ).

In terms of it being a direct force, no. It didn't. The Emperor Showa didn't look out of his window, see Tokyo burning and decide enough is enough.

Like the bombs themselves, they were a force, but not a direct cause. Would Japan have surrendered without the stratigic firebombings... probably, yes, but it would have taken a lot longer for the forces I mentioned above to gather and bother the Imperial Throne enough to make it notice and react.

That's quite an interesting leap of logic, don't you think?

Does that mean, by the way, that the people of London and Coventry were legitimate targets because many might have trained in the Home Guard?

We're not talking about London or Coventry. We are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two 100% legitamate military targets. And no, it is not a leap of logic because it is a known fact that the people of Japan were preparing their civilians to defend the home island against an Allied invasion.

If the coup had succeeded, millions of people would've died in an invasion because we would've had no choice but to procede with it.
What coup?

If anything, the action could have prevented the broadcast of the tape, giving the heads of the militarists enough time to try and change the mind of the emperor. They would never even have thought about trying to remove him from power - hell, a number of bigwigs killed themselves just because they disagreed with the emperor.

And judging from the plans, there would have been quite a bit of time left.

And you do not know that he wouldn't either.
The evidence is a lot stronger in support of my version than yours.

They did not. Yes, I know all about the Rape on Nanking and Unit 753, but it was not as big as the Final Solution or as systematic.

Oh, but it was every bit as systematic as the Nazis. The biggest difference is the Nazis targeted Jews and a handful of "undesirables" (gays, gypsys, Jehovah's Witnesses and others), while the Japanese targeted everyone who wasn't Japanese. Nanking was only a small part of it; the Japanese killed millions of people in China, Korea, Southeast Asia, the Phillipines and everywhere else they went. POWs were scum with no right to life; they'd dishonored themselves by surrendering so they might as well be killed or allowed to die since they had no worth.

The Japanese were, and to some extent still are, the biggest racists on the planet. If you weren't Japanese, you weren't human.

But how does that make the murder of these civilians any better? Why does it mean that their lives aren't worth the acknowledgement by the Allied governments?
All I know is that on the visitors books at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, only former president Jimmy Carter, California Rep Boxer, and former US Ambassador Baker have visited the museum to see what happened that day. No sitting president has ever gone.

I'd think that it would be required so that they know full well the power of what they can order.

What coup?

When the military received the order that it was over, those in command launched a coup to oust the Emperor and to continue the war. It is common knowledge that this occured. I'm surprised you didn't know this considering it has been in every Hiroshima thread that has come up.

If anything, the action could have prevented the broadcast of the tape, giving the heads of the militarists enough time to try and change the mind of the emperor. They would never even have thought about trying to remove him from power - hell, a number of bigwigs killed themselves just because they disagreed with the emperor.

Oh no, they were going to oust the emperor for "betraying" the Japanese People. Considering the the Imperial Line actually comes from Korea..... well that's a different story.

And judging from the plans, there would have been quite a bit of time left.

The evidence is a lot stronger in support of my version than yours.

HAHAHAHA!! And yet, I have history on my side as well as an idea as to the culture of the time. As well as knowing that the military fights according to the Bushido Code which clearly states DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR! To the Japanese, surrending is the highest form of disgrace.

We're not talking about London or Coventry. We are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The difference being?

Two 100% legitamate military targets.
Judging the legitimacy of the targets is not something Allied bombing commands were particularly good at.
It would probably have been perfectly possible to make the same sort of arguments for destroying London or Coventry.

And no, it is not a leap of logic because it is a known fact that the people of Japan were preparing their civilians to defend the home island against an Allied invasion.
As were the British.

Oh, but it was every bit as systematic as the Nazis. The biggest difference is the Nazis targeted Jews and a handful of "undesirables" (gays, gypsys, Jehovah's Witnesses and others), while the Japanese targeted everyone who wasn't Japanese. Nanking was only a small part of it; the Japanese killed millions of people in China, Korea, Southeast Asia, the Phillipines and everywhere else they went. POWs were scum with no right to life; they'd dishonored themselves by surrendering so they might as well be killed or allowed to die since they had no worth.

The Japanese were, and to some extent still are, the biggest racists on the planet. If you weren't Japanese, you weren't human.

Pretty much accurate.

The difference being?

They are for a different thread and not this one.

Judging the legitimacy of the targets is not something Allied bombing commands were particularly good at.

In this case, they couldn't have picked 2 better targets.

It would probably have been perfectly possible to make the same sort of arguments for destroying London or Coventry.

Different thread.

As were the British.

Yes they were. Luckily neither island was invaded.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming that the militarists were losing their footing with the emperor all throughout 1945 - and objectively speaking, I don't see how you could make the point that without the nukes, the emperor would not have ended the war some time in those weeks.
Please re-read what I had said. The bombs did provide a face saving meassure as well as force on the Imperial Throne. Would the Emperor Showa have capitulated? Probably, but not in the order of weeks, not really.

The bombs were a part of the reason Japan surrendered, they were a catalist. The best way I could put it would be that you need a awful lot of forces to go into space, you need lots of technology, fule, training, and so on. But at the end of the day, your rocket is going to just sit there unless someone lights a match to ignite your fule and get you going. That's what the bombs were, the match.

When the military received the order that it was over...
I'm going to leave Nervun to clear this one up. Suffice to say that I think you're showing your bias through your oversimplification. I'm quite aware of the "coup", but it seems to me that I know more about its goals, targets and methods than you do.

Which strategic bombing are you talking about?

LeMay's firebombings that were designed to "strategically" remove civilian production and support for the war.

I'm going to leave Nervun to clear this one up. Suffice to say that I think you're showing your bias through your oversimplification. I'm quite aware of the "coup", but it seems to me that I know more about its goals, targets and methods than you do.

Oh brother. I have studied the Pacific War from BOTH SIDES! The Japanese military had no intentions of giving up Neu Leonstein. They were preparing for the mother of all battles on the Japanese Homeland. I believe I know more about the Pacific Campaign as well as what the japanese wanted than you do because I have spent most of my life studying every aspect that I can get my hands on. I am not bias towards one side or the other at all.

LeMay's firebombings that were designed to "strategically" remove civilian production and support for the war.

Which prompted Lemay to say that if we lose this war, we'll be tried as war criminals.

I just read Neverun’s first post in this thread. I may… re-evaluate my opinion on this matter.

I could have sworn it was more than that. I don't think it was as little as 80,000, not by a long shot.
The 80,000 is from counting noses. Even Japan agrees the number is more likely closer to 200,000 women.

That's quite an interesting leap of logic, don't you think?
Does that mean, by the way, that the people of London and Coventry were legitimate targets because many might have trained in the Home Guard?

Personally I say yes. If your trained to fight someone they have a right to kill you.


There is the cultural thing. Ultimately, no matter which method you use though, killing yourself is a more peaceful experience than throwing your body in the meatgrinder of war.

That didn't stop them from throwing themselves away in banzi charges did it?

Well, not really. The Nazis had tried it before, and attempts at it were also done in WWI with the Zeppelins and that sort of thing.

There's a very big difference between B-29s and Zeppeins.


That is a pretty offensive thing to say. The US government wanted to play as well, otherwise they wouldn't have been fighting.
And nonetheless, the death of a soldier is always more excusable than the death of a civilian. For a soldier chooses to go to war, chooses to take the risk of dying.
It's true that winners do write history. Just the way things are. Anyway I don't think it really makes sense to apologize for finishing a war we didn't want to join. Remeber a little place called Pearl Harbor? We didn't really want in untill then. And what would people be saying had we stayed out and the allies had won? The Americans didn't help the world in it's time of need. And so does a civillian who joins the millitia.



Why is it so difficult for you to understand that not every Japanese person is the same?
Untill we got laser guided bombs and such we really couldn't pick and say okay that's the school so don't hit that, or that's the factory so only hit that. We couldn't pick and choose targets other than what city to hit. I know they are individuals with free thought. I know they didn't all want ot fight to the end but a majority, or at least a very large part of tehm did so we had no choice.


Already run out of arguments, have you?

a) No matter how often you repeat it, the people of Hiroshima did not start anything.
b) The textbooks were written by an isolated group of right-wingers, are not in use in any school I believe, and do in no way reflect the feeling of the Japanese populace about the war.
What do you want drom me? Had we bombed anyother city you'd have the same response. We couldn't and still can't kill just the people we're fighting without hitting civilians. What would you think we should have done?

The Japanese military had no intentions of giving up Neu Leonstein.
Obviously not (except of course all those factions that had since joined those pushing for the end of the war - like the navy).

But even less would it have been their intention to remove the emperor from power. That's the sort of thing that would have been absolutely incomprehensible...worse than forsaking your emperor is only to lay hands on him.

Oh, but it was every bit as systematic as the Nazis.

Meaning that you did not see a top down orginzation for the "disposal" of people like you saw in Nazi Germany. I'm not sure which I would consider more barbaric, the cold system of the Nazis or the random acts of the Japanese, both produced horrors beyond what any human should have to endure.

Obviously not (except of course all those factions that had since joined those pushing for the end of the war - like the navy).

Right but the Army wanted the war to Continue and it was the Army that was incharge of the country. Not the navy. So the point still stands that those in command didn't want the war to end.

But even less would it have been their intention to remove the emperor from power. That's the sort of thing that would have been absolutely incomprehensible...worse than forsaking your emperor is only to lay hands on him.

Normally you would be right but they obviously believed that the Emperor had taken leave of his faculties and decided to remove him from power.

Just a reminder, we are talking about 4.5% of the deaths in WWII. The only reason people care about Hiroshima or Nagasaki is because we killed them in a new way.

I just read Neverun’s first post in this thread. I may… re-evaluate my opinion on this matter.
He has a habbit of ruining the opinions of both sides on this issue. I've had to do that twice so far.

That didn't stop them from throwing themselves away in banzi charges did it?
There's a difference between a soldier and a civilian.

There's a very big difference between B-29s and Zeppeins.
Obviously. But the lessons from the Nazi bombing of Britain at least should have hit home...by 1945 they probably should also have learned that bombing Germany didn't make them consider giving up either.

It's true that winners do write history. Just the way things are. Anyway I don't think it really makes sense to apologize for finishing a war we didn't want to join. Remeber a little place called Pearl Harbor? We didn't really want in untill then. And what would people be saying had we stayed out and the allies had won? The Americans didn't help the world in it's time of need. And so does a civillian who joins the millitia.
Pearl Harbor was an attack by the Japanese, that is true. But there can be no doubt that it was prompted by the US' policy against Japan. Whether justified or not, the US took an anti-Japanese stand over China and had chosen to side with the UK a long time ago.
The government wanted to fight that war for some time, there was simply an issue of the public not going along. I'm not going to go down the road of conspiracy theories, but for the US government at least, the Pearl Harbor attack must have felt like a gift from heaven.

What would you think we should have done?
Stay calm, quit with the revenge fantasies and simply win the war on the battlefield. And lock up Curtis LeMay.

When the military received the order that it was over, those in command launched a coup to oust the Emperor and to continue the war. It is common knowledge that this occured. I'm surprised you didn't know this considering it has been in every Hiroshima thread that has come up.
No, actually, those in command STOPPED the attempted coup. It was some mid-level officers who attempted to secure the Emperor's person and detroy the surrender tapes.

Oh no, they were going to oust the emperor for "betraying" the Japanese People. Considering the the Imperial Line actually comes from Korea..... well that's a different story.
Er... no they weren't. These guys were bound and convinced that the Emperor was under the infulance of the Imperial Household Ministry and that THEY had forced the Emperor to surrender. The officers were convinced that if they could secure the personage of the Emperor and show how loyal and how willing to die his troops were, he would reverse the decision to surrender. Should he not, they wouldn't have killed him, they would have placed his brother on the throne as a regent as both of his brothers were for the continuation of the war and served activly in the military (One in the Imperial Navy, one in the Imperial Army). The coup wasn't quite like coups in western countries.

They were also following tradition as this had happened before in the early 30's IIRC.

No, actually, those in command STOPPED the attempted coup. It was some mid-level officers who attempted to secure the Emperor's person and detroy the surrender tapes.

I stand corrected.

*snip*

I believe you are indeed correct.

He has a habbit of ruining the opinions of both sides on this issue. I've had to do that twice so far.
Sorry! What can I say, I'm more than slightly interested in Japanese culture. ;)

Normally you would be right but they obviously believed that the Emperor had taken leave of his faculties and decided to remove him from power.
But AFAIK, they didn't try. They occupied the palace to keep him quiet, and they tried to intercept the tape of surrender.

I don't think they actually wanted to do anything but make him reevaluate his decision.

But AFAIK, they didn't try. They occupied the palace to keep him quiet, and they tried to intercept the tape of surrender.

I don't think they actually wanted to do anything but make him reevaluate his decision.
Here you go, for everyone wondering about this:

Generals foiled Aug. 15 palace coup


Pair's actions credited with ensuring Hirohito surrender decree
By MUTSUO FUKUSHIMA
Kyodo News
Hours before Emperor Hirohito decreed Japan's World War II surrender 60 years ago, two Imperial army generals foiled a coup attempt by a dozen officers to block the historic broadcast.

On Aug. 15, 1945, nearly 1,000 soldiers occupied the Imperial Palace grounds for six hours from 2 a.m., aiming to seize two 25-cm records of the reading of the surrender decree and blocking its noon broadcast that day.

The actions of Lt. Gen. Takeshi Mori, commander of the First Imperial Guards Division, and Gen. Shizuichi Tanaka, commander of the Eastern Defense Command, enabled the monarch, known posthumously as Emperor Showa, to announce over the radio to the Japanese people and armed forces the nation's unconditional surrender.

The broadcast paved the way for the Allied Powers to occupy Japan without serious turmoil.

Emperor Hirohito made the recording at around 11:30 p.m. on Aug. 14, and Chamberlain Yoshihiro Tokugawa put the two records in a small safe in the first-floor office of the monarch's retinue, hidden from sight with piles of papers.

At around 1:40 a.m. on Aug. 15, Mori, 52, was shot by Maj. Kenji Hatanaka and then hacked to death by Capt. Shigetaro Uehara at his headquarters after rejecting their demand to order his 4,000-man division to revolt against the government and seize the palace.

"Mori rejected the officers' demands to order his Guards Division to rise up in revolt, because he had recognized the importance of establishing peace with the Allied Powers to prevent the Japanese people from being destroyed by a continued war," historian Kazutoshi Hando said in a recent interview.

"Had the broadcast of the surrender rescript been blocked, the Japanese military would have kept up its fighting spirit, and the armed forces would have carried on on many battlefields," he said.

On Aug. 14, the government of then Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki decided to accept the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. The decision was made at a meeting of the six-member Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, including Suzuki and War Minister Korechika Anami, in the presence of Emperor Hirohito.

At around 2 a.m. the next morning, Maj. Hidemasa Koga, Guards Division staff officer and son-in-law of Gen. Hideki Tojo, the prime minister at the time of the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, issued a bogus order for the 1,000 soldiers to occupy the palace, seize all gates and cut all telephone lines except one linking the palace to the Guards headquarters.

The order was aimed at isolating the Emperor from the outside, preventing him from asking the government or any forces inclined toward peace, including the Eastern Defense Command, for help, and toppling the Suzuki administration to form a new government led by War Minister Anami.

The Eastern Command, led by Gen. Tanaka, was in charge of defending the capital.

The coup leaders affixed the official seal of murdered Division Commander Mori to copies of the order, tricking the division's field and company officers into believing it was authentic.

In addition, a 60-man company of the Guards Division's First Regiment occupied NHK, then based in Tokyo's Uchisaiwaicho, and prohibited all broadcasts. NHK was then 1.5 km away from the Imperial Household Ministry, the predecessor of the Imperial Household Agency.

"I heard three bangs when I was on sentry duty in an air-raid shelter outside the room of Division Commander Mori," said Ikuo Okazawa, who was a 24-year-old lance corporal in the division's Second Regiment at the time of the assassination.

Okazawa, now 84, claimed he initially thought the three bangs might have come from a motorcycle being started nearby.

Shortly after the shots, 2nd Lt. Tamiharu Sasaki came to the shelter and ordered Okazawa and three other soldiers to make "a pair of wooden boxes large enough for a person," as well as lids.

"We went to a nearby First Regiment barracks, and tore up the floorboards to make the boxes," Okazawa, a former legislator of the town assembly of Kamigori, Hyogo Prefecture, said in a recent interview.

An hour later, Okazawa and the others took the rough-planed coffins to the commander's room.

Then, "2nd Lt. Sasaki, loosening his sword, told us he would hack us to death if we said anything to anybody about what we were going to see upon entering the room," he said.

"When I entered the room, I found the bodies of Mori and his brother-in-law, Lt. Col. (Michinori) Shiraishi," he said. It was only at that moment that he realized the boxes he had made were coffins, he reckoned.

Shiraishi, staff officer of the Hiroshima-based Second General Army, had come to Tokyo the previous day and called on Mori, his wife's older brother, before he was to fly back to Hiroshima.

"My estimate is that the number of soldiers who entered the palace premises was more than 1,000. . . . Those who invaded the Imperial Household Ministry building to seize the recordings of the rescript numbered between 40 and 50," Masahisa Enai, a former corporal in the Imperial Guards Division's Second Regiment and a coup participant, said in a telephone interview.

Enai, 88, became an Asahi Shimbun journalist after the war.

At the Aug. 14 supreme council meeting, Hirohito asked the councilors to prepare the capitulation decree.

"If we continue the war, Japan will be totally annihilated. If even a small number of Japanese people's seed is allowed to remain . . . there is a glimmer of hope of an eventual Japanese recovery. . . . I am willing to go before the microphone," he said.

In the subsequently recorded announcement, he said: "I have ordered the government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration" issued from Potsdam near Berlin on July 26.

However, despite a series of military defeats in the Pacific, including in the Philippines and Okinawa, the Aug. 6 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Aug. 9 bombing of Nagasaki, and even Japan's dispatch of a cablegram on Aug. 10 accepting the Potsdam declaration, there were still plenty of military fanatics who refused to surrender.

Masataka Ida, a coup leader, said in a 380-page memoir that he tried to persuade Mori to order his Guards Division to occupy the palace at a meeting that began at around 12:40 a.m. on Aug. 15.

"Your excellency, if we obey the Emperor's order, the emperor system could be abolished. . . . A plan has been devised to kill you, though it depends on your response," Ida told Mori.

The lieutenant colonel quoted Mori as responding: "I am prepared for the worst. I am risking my life to defend the palace."

Just after Ida left Mori's room, Maj. Hatanaka and Capt. Uehara entered and learned Mori had rejected their demand that he order the coup. Then they killed him.

Capt. Nobuo Kitabatake, commander of one of the three Guards Division battalions that took over the palace, wrote in his memoir: "If the Imperial Guards Division became the first to rise in revolt, it would embolden the entire military to rise, thus leading Japan to continue the war."

After the forged order to gain control of the palace was issued at around 2 a.m., Koga and Hatanaka entered the palace, tricking Col. Toyojiro Haga, commander of the 1,000 Imperial Guards on the grounds, into believing the war minister would soon call on the Emperor to persuade him to scrap his decision to surrender.

The soldiers started searching for the surrender records. Capt. Kiichiro Aiura, a leader of a machinegun company with the Imperial Guards Second Regiment, was one of the officers ordered to join the search.

"I was ordered by Maj. Koga to go to the Imperial Household Ministry building and search for the records of the (surrender decree) along with Capt. Shinichi Kitamura, who had already been looking," he said.

The rebels searched for the recording for 90 minutes, but to no avail.

The plotters suffered a setback when Col. Kazuo Mizutani, chief of staff of the Guards Division, escaped to the Eastern Defense Command and alerted Gen. Tanaka.

At 4 a.m., Tanaka arrived at the barracks of the Imperial Guards Division and persuaded Col. Taro Watanabe, commander of its First Regiment, who was on the brink of sending 1,000 reinforcements to the palace, to disperse his soldiers.

Tanaka then summoned Haga, informed him that Mori had been murdered and that the occupation order was a sham, and persuaded him to order his troops to stand down.

After a furious Haga confronted Koga and Hatanaka, they left the palace and killed themselves. Haga had all of the troops pulled out of the palace at around 8 a.m.

At noon, the surrender recording was broadcast, and the nation heard the Emperor's voice announcing Japan's capitulation.

Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, an adviser to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, wrote in 1947 of the broadcast, "This historically unprecedented surrender unquestionably shortened the war by many months and prevented an estimated 450,000 American battle casualties."

The Japan Times: Friday, Aug. 12, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/news/nn08-2005/nn20050812f2.htm
(You may have to register to get at it)

There's a difference between a soldier and a civilian.


Obviously. But the lessons from the Nazi bombing of Britain at least should have hit home...by 1945 they probably should also have learned that bombing Germany didn't make them consider giving up either.

Of course but Japan (not all of Japan just most of them) had a tendency to blur that line. Blame bureaucracy. It takes for ever for such a dramatic change in tatics to happen.


Pearl Harbor was an attack by the Japanese, that is true. But there can be no doubt that it was prompted by the US' policy against Japan. Whether justified or not, the US took an anti-Japanese stand over China and had chosen to side with the UK a long time ago.
The government wanted to fight that war for some time, there was simply an issue of the public not going along. I'm not going to go down the road of conspiracy theories, but for the US government at least, the Pearl Harbor attack must have felt like a gift from heaven.
Some gift. I'm not going to say FDR didn't want to go to war but because THE PEOPLE DIDN'T we didn't go. So we should have let them take over and oppress the world? As much of a cliche as it is (thanks a lot for this Bush) we still need to protect the freedom of other people.


Stay calm, quit with the revenge fantasies and simply win the war on the battlefield. And lock up Curtis LeMay.
And this battlefield of yours would it magicly stay away from all civillians? Would Hiroshima have been left untouched? It was going to be destroy no matter how we did it, so we might as well have killed less people doing it.

Here you go, for everyone wondering about this:


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/news/nn08-2005/nn20050812f2.htm
(You may have to register to get at it)

Thank you NERVUN. This has always fascinated me. Thanks.

As much of a cliche as it is (thanks a lot for this Bush) we still need to protect the freedom of other people.
Of course there is some merit in this, but does that justify killing so many, just to shorten the war a little bit?
Are the Japanese not people worthy of freedom and 'protection'?

And this battlefield of yours would it magicly stay away from all civillians?
As far as tactics are concerned, my philosophy is that a civilian life is always worth more than that of any soldier, and tactics should reflect that.
Collateral Damage is not acceptable. If you can anticipate it, don't go ahead.

Would Hiroshima have been left untouched? It was going to be destroy no matter how we did it, so we might as well have killed less people doing it.
As I said in my first post, and we've been talking about since then, there is a distinct possibility that the war could have been ended both without the nukes being dropped on cities and without an invasion.

As far as tactics are concerned, my philosophy is that a civilian life is always worth more than that of any soldier, and tactics should reflect that.
Collateral Damage is not acceptable. If you can anticipate it, don't go ahead.

And this has caused the deaths of many soldiers of the American Army and Marines.

As I said in my first post, and we've been talking about since then, there is a distinct possibility that the war could have been ended both without the nukes being dropped on cities and without an invasion.

I highly doubt it.

Of course there is some merit in this, but does that justify killing so many, just to shorten the war a little bit?
Are the Japanese not people worthy of freedom and 'protection'?
Look at them now. You tell me if we helped them. We did rebuild the country after we destroyed it. Would they have done that for us? We killed so many yet in doin gso we saved so many.

As far as tactics are concerned, my philosophy is that a civilian life is always worth more than that of any soldier, and tactics should reflect that.
Collateral Damage is not acceptable. If you can anticipate it, don't go ahead.

Well than we just have completely differnt mind sets and nobody's going to convince the other one eh?;)

As I said in my first post, and we've been talking about since then, there is a distinct possibility that the war could have been ended both without the nukes being dropped on cities and without an invasion.
People were dying daily. How long would you have waited?

Look at them now. You tell me if we helped them. We did rebuild the country after we destroyed it. Would they have done that for us? We killed so many yet in doin gso we saved so many.
You didn't rebuild. Perhaps you helped rebuilding, but it was the Japanese who made it happen themselves, using a completely different economic model from the American one.

Well than we just have completely differnt mind sets and nobody's going to convince the other one eh?;)
Except perhaps that I my side is justified by a logic which suggests that making the conscious choice to go to war and risk your life indeed makes your death less of a tragedy than the death of those who never wanted anything to do with fighting a war.
You on the other hand seem to rely mainly on unjustified patriotism alá "American lives are worth more to me than Japanese lives".

People were dying daily. How long would you have waited?
I'd have done whatever meant the death of fewer civilians. You tell me the rate at which they were dying and I can tell you how long I'd have waited.

You didn't rebuild. Perhaps you helped rebuilding, but it was the Japanese who made it happen themselves, using a completely different economic model from the American one.
Well, depends upon what you mean by rebuild. After the war, America DID help a lot. It provided money, materials, and, most importantly of all, food. It tried to provide democratic ideals and American ways of doing things like education, but the Japanese more or less waited till after America left and changed things to suit them.

If you mean Japan's current postion as the second largest economy in the world and world leader in many fields, THAT wasn't America, that happened late 60's to late 80's, but America helped build the foundations of that as it were.

I'd have done whatever meant the death of fewer civilians. You tell me the rate at which they were dying and I can tell you how long I'd have waited.
By the hundreds if not thousands a day. The situation in Japan was very, very bleak. Starvation, lack of resources, lack of medicine, whole populations being transported hither and yon. If you're really interested, Neu Leonstein, rent the film "Grave of the Fireflies" to see what life was like shortly before the end of the war, and shortly afterwards. But get a box of tissues, you'll need them by the time you're done.

Grave of the Fireflies is one of the most amazing anime films ever made. It is really realistic and tramatic and sad. By all means...buy it.

Well do not know if this has been mentioned in this posting yet. But the plan to use chemical weapons in the home island invasion plan was estimated to kill 5 million +. They had built up millions of chemical shells and bombs just for this purpose. This was not a theoretical plan by no means. I believe this would have probably been carried out. After knowing this I would have to come to the conclusion that the use of the two atomic bombs was a better choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20050824&articleId=856

Well....it was going to be closer to 10 million deaths...if America DID manage to invade. Though by my calculations...America would have gotten its ass KICKED.

Well....it was going to be closer to 10 million deaths...if America DID manage to invade. Though by my calculations...America would have gotten its ass KICKED.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh this is so rich. Did you read up on Operation Olympic? Did you know that they were contemplating on using CHEMICAL WEAPONS? We would've suffered heavy casualties yes, that would be true.

Are you saying that the Invasion would've failed?

Well do not know if this has been mentioned in this posting yet. But the plan to use chemical weapons in the home island invasion plan was estimated to kill 5 million +. They had built up millions of chemical shells and bombs just for this purpose. This was not a theoretical plan by no means. I believe this would have probably been carried out. After knowing this I would have to come to the conclusion that the use of the two atomic bombs was a better choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20050824&articleId=856

Drat! You beat me to the chemical weapons :(

Though really....bombing CIVILIANS? Isn't that a little much for even America.

Though really....bombing CIVILIANS? Isn't that a little much for even America.

This was WWII. Everyone bombed civilians.

Only 5% of casualities were civilians. Its up to 70% now.

Only 5% of casualities were civilians. Its up to 70% now.

What do you mean? At least half the casualties in WWII were civilians.

What do you mean? At least half the casualties in WWII were civilians.

Actually I think it was higher than that. More civilians died than military.

What do you mean? At least half the casualties in WWII were civilians.

Proof of this? Mine comes from the History channel.

Actually I think it was higher than that. More civilians died than military.

Not counting holocaust, talking about military casualties inflicted on civilians. (Does not apply to those in military targets.)

Proof of this? Mine comes from the History channel.

What program?

Though I don't like using Wikipedia, I'll use it in this case. Of all the deaths that occured 54% of them were allied Civilian Deaths compared to 6% civilian deaths for the axis.

no, i dont think that this was a consciouss plan at the time on behalf of america, cause they didnt know the true extent of the destruction, and the primary abjective was to end the war. it was however an inevitable effect of using it.
this theory is only circulated due to the benefit of hindsight

There was a little wink and a nudge toward the soviets with the second bomb I think.

Proof of this? Mine comes from the History channel.

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

Best I can find that lays it all out. Should provide a link Corneliu. ;)

Not sure....let me track down a quote.

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

Best I can find that lays it all out. Should provide a link Corneliu. ;)

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

Much abliged.

In World War I, only some 5% of the casualties (directly caused by the war) were civilian - in World War II, this figure approached 50%.

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

My mistake.

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

My mistake.

We all make them :D

If you're really interested, Neu Leonstein, rent the film "Grave of the Fireflies" to see what life was like shortly before the end of the war, and shortly afterwards. But get a box of tissues, you'll need them by the time you're done.
I know, I've seen it...:(

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

My mistake.

We all make them :D

Least I know America would have lost against Japan. :)

Least I know America would have lost against Japan. :)

:rolleyes:

They would have...Japan was just too powerful and had nature on its side.

They would have...Japan was just too powerful and had nature on its side.

Oh brother. If Typhoons did not stop the Americans, nothing could've.

Least I know America would have lost against Japan. :)

Actually, if we started to lose, we would have just called in the Naval Guns and pounded their emplacements to bits. Then, they would attack with GOATS! (http://www.agr.state.nc.us/cyber/kidswrld/general/barnyard/jpgs/vet07.jpg) YES! GoATS! Japanese people can't stand goats!

Least I know America would have lost against Japan. :)

What do you mean? After Midway the United States had the upper hand and it was only June 1942. Had the Japanese won who knows what might have happened but they didn't.

The day they were going to launch the operation a typhoon would have smashed the fleet that WAS going to be there. Also after WWII as the troops were leaving a major storm hit the island where they were, damage was high and it was severe....but since they were leaving it was not a total loss.

Those two storms combined would have wrecked the American fleet. Even if it didn't the Japanese Ketsu-go would have.

The day they were going to launch the operation a typhoon would have smashed the fleet that WAS going to be there. Also after WWII as the troops were leaving a major storm hit the island where they were, damage was high and it was severe....but since they were leaving it was not a total loss.

As I said, Typhoons have encumbered American Naval operations before but did not defeat the American Navy. If they didn't stop the US from taking away islands from the Japanese, What makes you think they would've stopped an invasion? We would've just canceled it and wait for the Typhoon to do our dirty work for us.

Those two storms combined would have wrecked the American fleet. Even if it didn't the Japanese Ketsu-go would have.

Two storms? From all weather accounts, there wasn't a typhoon in sight.

What do you mean? After Midway the United States had the upper hand and it was only June 1942. Had the Japanese won who knows what might have happened but they didn't.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/
http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap5.htm

I know, I've seen it...:(
Then, from what my studies have shown me, and in talking with those who were there, it is pretty close to life in Japan at that time.

It's also why I hate the idea that a blockade would have starved Japan into submission. It would have worked, eventually, but at the cost of more of that.

That why I say I hate the bombs, I hate the idea of having done what we did. The most powerful moment for me at Hiroshima was a simple carved stone that just reads, "Please give me water". I hate that we visted THAT on women, children, men, military or not. But, damned be I if I can think of one way to have ended that war that would not have led to more suffering on both sides.

Thanks for showing us Operation Olympic and Coronet. Now how does this prove that we would lose?

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/
http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap5.htm

Those links would certainly support the use of the bomb to end the war quickly and avoid such scenarios. I also echo Corneliu's question of how we would lose because of this. It would come with tremendous cost but we would still win.

They would have...Japan was just too powerful and had nature on its side.
何だHell? The Japanese High Command knew it couldn't win the war from the getgo. Their hope was to force the US to the table and keep the territories it had taken with the resources.

Where on Earth are you getting that silly idea?

As I said, Typhoons have encumbered American Naval operations before but did not defeat the American Navy. If they didn't stop the US from taking away islands from the Japanese, What makes you think they would've stopped an invasion? We would've just canceled it and wait for the Typhoon to do our dirty work for us.



Two storms? From all weather accounts, there wasn't a typhoon in sight.


The storms were disregarded afterwards, but the placement matches the operation time and it would have delayed the invasion of Japan to 1946. Meaning suicidal jet planes. >.>

Japan was going to crush the American force. THEY WERE GOING TO KAMIKAZE US FOR DAYS.

At the end of the war, Japan had approximately 12,725 planes.

The storms were disregarded afterwards, but the placement matches the operation time and it would have delayed the invasion of Japan to 1946. Meaning suicidal jet planes. >.>

Japan was going to crush the American force. THEY WERE GOING TO KAMIKAZE US FOR DAYS.
Um... this is indeed true (Though the jets were actually close to human guided missiles), but how would that have stopped the US and won the war for Japan?

何だHell? The Japanese High Command knew it couldn't win the war from the getgo. Their hope was to force the US to the table and keep the territories it had taken with the resources.

Where on Earth are you getting that silly idea?

Care to bet he's from Japan?

何だHell? The Japanese High Command knew it couldn't win the war from the getgo. Their hope was to force the US to the table and keep the territories it had taken with the resources.

Where on Earth are you getting that silly idea?

Japan was going to crush our fleet if they were to lose. The motto was: "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly." Japan was going to fight to the END. Every man, woman and child was going to fight.

Of the 650,000 set for Kyushu 2 million civilians would have aided in the attack to blur combat lines and totally destroy the morale of the Americans in MASSIVE attacks for days on end if they made it to shore.

The troop ratio was 1:1 and they had more then 12,000 planes ready to bomb the shit out of the invading forces, the target was TROOP TRANSPORTS. They were going to KILL US ALL.

The storms were disregarded afterwards, but the placement matches the operation time and it would have delayed the invasion of Japan to 1946. Meaning suicidal jet planes. >.>

Japan was going to crush the American force. THEY WERE GOING TO KAMIKAZE US FOR DAYS.

They kamakazied us at Iwo Jima. They Kamakazied us at Okinawa. We lost a ship and a half a day to the kamakazis at Okinawa and we still took the island.

Care to bet he's from Japan?

I'm an American. Numbers do not lie though.

Japan was going to crush our fleet if they were to lose. The motto was: "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly." Japan was going to fight to the END. Every man, woman and child was going to fight.

Of the 650,000 set for Kyushu 2 million civilians would have aided in the attack to blur combat lines and totally destroy the morale of the Americans in MASSIVE attacks for days on end if they made it to shore.

The troop ratio was 1:1 and they had more then 12,000 planes ready to bomb the shit out of the invading forces, the target was TROOP TRANSPORTS. They were going to KILL US ALL.

You do realize that the invasion was going to be made up of more than just American Troops right? Also, the American Invasion force were preparing themselves for the killing of women and children in combat. We had way to many ships for them to destroy and our air supremacy would've made it difficult for them to launch their planes.

As to the troops, we have these things called bombs that we can do massive amounts of damage with. Not to mention the shore bombardment from the naval vessels. Not to mention the use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS!

Yea I really see japan beating the US :rolleyes:

They kamakazied us at Iwo Jima. They Kamakazied us at Okinawa. We lost a ship and a half a day to the kamakazis at Okinawa and we still took the island.

The major failure of intelligence concerned the Japanese capability for suicide attacks. In spite of countermeasures, the suicide attacks directed against the U.S. task forces and transport areas would unquestionably have been serious and would have caused severe losses. The kamikaze attacks against the U.S. fleet at Okinawa came after the aircraft flew more than 500 miles over open ocean. Many inexperienced pilots lost their way and never reached the American fleet. This great distance also allowed the fleet to receive early warning from picket ships and scramble fighters to engage the kamikazes. Bad weather in the target area also hampered the kamikaze pilots from acquiring their targets. With all of these difficulties, the Japanese ratio of planes launched to planes successfully striking their targets was 1 in 9. The Japanese flew 1,840 "special-attack" planes during the battle for Okinawa. A ratio of 1 in 9 would equate to approximately 202 planes striking their targets.(3) The U.S. Navy reported 192 ships hit by kamikaze planes during the battle of Okinawa; of these, 15 were sunk.

Although the damage inflicted by the Kamikaze planes was superficial, they managed to kill 12,300 American servicemen and wound 36,400. For the defense of Kyushu the Japanese were to employ upwards of 10,000 kamikaze planes. Although the Japanese staff planned for a hit ratio of 1 in 9, many believed that they would be far more successful. The special attack aircraft would have to fly less than 100 miles to their target with almost the entire distance spent over land masked by terrain. The U.S. fleet would have very little warning time to intercept the aircraft. Anchored troop transports, just off the coast, would be easy targets as they unloaded their cargo. It is highly probable that the Japanese suicide attack hit ratio would have been higher, probably closer to 1 in 6 or

1 in 7. At these ratios, 1,400 to 1,600 kamikaze aircraft would have hit American ships. With their targets being transports, the casualty rate per hit would have been higher than at Okinawa where destroyers were the primary target. In addition to the kamikaze aircraft, the U.S. fleet also would have had to deal with all of the Japanese Navy's special attack boats and midget submarines. Even if the suicide attacks were only marginally successful, the U.S. attack ratio would have eroded still farther. If the Japanese did succeed in delivering 1,500 hits against the transports, the mythical "Divine Wind" may well have blown again, turning away another invasion fleet.

1:9 to 1:6.....Also the target was basically UNARMORED this time. The were going to slam into the troop ships and destroy them, much different from battleships and carries. (3000 planes were going to dogfight to the death above Kyushu and also bomb the carriers and use one of the largest bombs Japan ever made to blast one out. (the second was lost in transit)

Care to bet he's from Japan?
Nope, the English isn't right. Japanese speakers of English tend to use a certain turn of phrase that I've gotten used to.

I'm an American. Numbers do not lie though.

Apparently your taking them for gospel however, you are forgetting just how invasions start as well as technology.

1:9 to 1:6.....Also the target was basically UNARMORED this time. The were going to slam into the troop ships and destroy them, much different from battleships and carries. (3000 planes were going to dogfight to the death above Kyushu and also bomb the carriers and use one of the largest bombs Japan ever made to blast one out. (the second was lost in transit)

Troop ships are protected my friend. Your also forgetting about Allied Aircraft.

You do realize that the invasion was going to be made up of more than just American Troops right? Also, the American Invasion force were preparing themselves for the killing of women and children in combat. We had way to many ships for them to destroy and our air supremacy would've made it difficult for them to launch their planes.

As to the troops, we have these things called bombs that we can do massive amounts of damage with. Not to mention the shore bombardment from the naval vessels. Not to mention the use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS!

Yea I really see japan beating the US :rolleyes:

Also did I mention the 1946 Scenario includes British forces also? The Japanese were MESSING with us. We thought we destroyed all their planes, when that is hardly the case. They hid THOUSANDS of planes right under our noses.

If they wanted to take out the planes they would have. Japanese forces could take out the American bombers if they tried, but it was all being saved up for Kyushu.

Also did I mention the 1946 Scenario includes British forces also? The Japanese were MESSING with us. We thought we destroyed all their planes, when that is hardly the case. They hid THOUSANDS of planes right under our noses.

If they wanted to take out the planes they would have. Japanese forces could take out the American bombers if they tried, but it was all being saved up for Kyushu.

You continue to keep telling yourself that. I'm sure once you actually study World War II pacific theater a tad more, you'll see that the Japanese couldn't stop us no matter what they did and no matter how big the blunder our admirals did.

Troop ships are protected my friend. Your also forgetting about Allied Aircraft.

How are you going to ignore 3000 planes though? Or 10,000 planes coming in barely visible until right before they hit? Also AS THEY UNLOADED? One plane in the cargo hold and WHAM 500+ American deaths and there goes a huge amount of supplies.

Kamikazes -- 2,100 army planes and 2,700 navy planes

This does not add up to 12,000 planes!

http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

You continue to keep telling yourself that. I'm sure once you actually study World War II pacific theater a tad more, you'll see that the Japanese couldn't stop us no matter what they did and no matter how big the blunder our admirals did.


I think you need to read my sources.

A 36% troop underestimate and an ungodly underestimate of air power combined with the wearing down task the Japanese had planned....we would have been too fired and out of ammo to fight. We'd lose.

How are you going to ignore 3000 planes though? Or 10,000 planes coming in barely visible until right before they hit? Also AS THEY UNLOADED? One plane in the cargo hold and WHAM 500+ American deaths and there goes a huge amount of supplies.

Perhaps your forgetting baout the fact that the allies had 21 carriers in thier strike force with the assault force having 26 +8 that would be on detached duty from strike force during the invasion period.

If my math is right, that is 40-47 carriers with their own airplanes. Not to mention the fighters on Okinawa that can also assist in the air battle over Japan.

The US would've had way to many ships for the japanese to destroy.

Japan was going to crush our fleet if they were to lose. The motto was: "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly." Japan was going to fight to the END. Every man, woman and child was going to fight.
I refer you back to a post I made earlier in the thread. Yes, everyone was being moblized to fight at the time. However, even the most rabit right wingnut in Japan doesn't suggest that every man woman and child in Japan would have risen up and fought us. The main idea was shock as they were arming junior high school girls with bamboo spears and telling them to stick it into the neck of a GI. The girl WOULD die, of course, but the shock of having to kill her was what the High Command were counting on.

However, I seriously doubt that would have stopped allied advancement.

Of the 650,000 set for Kyushu 2 million civilians would have aided in the attack to blur combat lines and totally destroy the morale of the Americans in MASSIVE attacks for days on end if they made it to shore.
Doubtful. Many civilians were fleeing towards the hills at the time. Like I said, how many would have actually fought is a topic of much debate, even in Japan.

What would have happened, I have no doubt, is that the allied troops would have become paranoid enough to start shooting everything that moved. But, again, I doubt very much that it would have actually stopped allied advancements.

The troop ratio was 1:1 and they had more then 12,000 planes ready to bomb the shit out of the invading forces, the target was TROOP TRANSPORTS. They were going to KILL US ALL.
You assume that the transports were going in without air support or protection, this is not the case. Hell, in earlier parts of the war, America targeted Japanese troop transports, sinking many, but many also managed to get onto the islands as well. Yes, it would have been very, very costly in terms of lives, both American and Japanese, but you haven't shown me anything that would prove Japan would have won the war should America had to have invaded the home islands.

Kamikazes -- 2,100 army planes and 2,700 navy planes

This does not add up to 12,000 planes!

http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

That is our intelligence....which is SO wrong. The real number was: 12,725

If landings were made, the air forces would conduct operations to sever supply lines to facilitate the fighting of the ground forces. Planes were to be released in waves of 300-400, at the rate of one wave per hour, against the invasion fleet. Sufficient fuel had been stored for this use, but only about 8,000 pilots were available.Although the pilots were poorly trained and no match against experienced American pilots, they were capable enough to carry out suicide attacks against ships. At the end of the war, Japan had approximately 12,725 planes. The Army had 5,651 and the Navy had 7,074 aircraft of all types.

I think you need to read my sources.

A 36% troop underestimate and an ungodly underestimate of air power combined with the wearing down task the Japanese had planned....we would have been too fired and out of ammo to fight. We'd lose.

I'd read your sources. I also see the fact that they still would've lost because of what we would be employing. The Japanese couldn't stop the United States from gaining a foot hold and they wouldn't be able to toss us back out either.

Now, this is simpley my own opinion, but I think that it would have been better just to bomb, perhaps, military areas, instead of areas where innocent citizens resided. And that is if bombing was even completely necessary.

Perhaps your forgetting baout the fact that the allies had 21 carriers in thier strike force with the assault force having 26 +8 that would be on detached duty from strike force during the invasion period.

If my math is right, that is 40-47 carriers with their own airplanes. Not to mention the fighters on Okinawa that can also assist in the air battle over Japan.

The US would've had way to many ships for the japanese to destroy.

Only America and Britain would send forces. It would not be all on one. Though even with the full force it would not have been enough.

A 36% troop underestimate and an ungodly underestimate of air power combined with the wearing down task the Japanese had planned....we would have been too fired and out of ammo to fight. We'd lose.
Um, while the Japanese did have these resources, they were finnite and were not able to be replaced once lost, the US was turning out more and more supplies, planes, weapons, and men everyday. That was where the fight was, and it was a place where Japan was hopelessly outmatched, and it knew this going into the war.

Now, this is simpley my own opinion, but I think that it would have been better just to bomb, perhaps, military areas, instead of areas where innocent citizens resided. And that is if bombing was even completely necessary.

We did bomb military areas. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.

Only America and Britain would send forces. It would not be all on one. Though even with the full force it would not have been enough.

Canada would've had troops as well as Australia and New Zealand. Don't know about the Philippines though.

I refer you back to a post I made earlier in the thread. Yes, everyone was being moblized to fight at the time. However, even the most rabit right wingnut in Japan doesn't suggest that every man woman and child in Japan would have risen up and fought us. The main idea was shock as they were arming junior high school girls with bamboo spears and telling them to stick it into the neck of a GI. The girl WOULD die, of course, but the shock of having to kill her was what the High Command were counting on.

However, I seriously doubt that would have stopped allied advancement.


Doubtful. Many civilians were fleeing towards the hills at the time. Like I said, how many would have actually fought is a topic of much debate, even in Japan.

What would have happened, I have no doubt, is that the allied troops would have become paranoid enough to start shooting everything that moved. But, again, I doubt very much that it would have actually stopped allied advancements.


You assume that the transports were going in without air support or protection, this is not the case. Hell, in earlier parts of the war, America targeted Japanese troop transports, sinking many, but many also managed to get onto the islands as well. Yes, it would have been very, very costly in terms of lives, both American and Japanese, but you haven't shown me anything that would prove Japan would have won the war should America had to have invaded the home islands.

Actually....the mindset was the bushido way. They'd inflict few losses, but few soldiers would fire on them and so many would overwhelm the GIs. The American advance would have been non-existant. Japanese kills for American kills was nearing 1:1 at the end of the war.

In the beginning it was 1:22. Japan was learning how to kill us. By the end...they had the advantage.

Now, this is simpley my own opinion, but I think that it would have been better just to bomb, perhaps, military areas, instead of areas where innocent citizens resided. And that is if bombing was even completely necessary.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actual military areas. Also, part of the problem is that, with limited room, Japan tends to build everything next to everything else. Even now the consept of urban planning hasn't really caught on and you get a very, very strange hodgepodge mixture within Japanese cities where industrial is located next to a hospital, next to a school, next to an apartment block, next to a casino, next to a shopping mall, next to a park, next to a train station and all usually within a square mile.

It also makes finding ANYTHING in Japan fun.

Um, while the Japanese did have these resources, they were finnite and were not able to be replaced once lost, the US was turning out more and more supplies, planes, weapons, and men everyday. That was where the fight was, and it was a place where Japan was hopelessly outmatched, and it knew this going into the war.

Japan had 4 million troops by the end. That was more then the USA and they were well supplied and ready. All the products were hidden away. (Which is how we missed 7000 planes and all their jet prototypes and the sucidal subs and other nastys they had planned.

American was outmatched, but not outgunned.

Actually....the mindset was the bushido way. They'd inflict few losses, but few soldiers would fire on them and so many would overwhelm the GIs. The American advance would have been non-existant. Japanese kills for American kills was nearing 1:1 at the end of the war.

In the beginning it was 1:22. Japan was learning how to kill us. By the end...they had the advantage.

Excuse but what do you mean that they'd inflict few losses and that few soldiers would fire at them? You are forgetting that their island was being invaded and that they would do anything to defend it.

They were dead going into this war. Even Admiral Yamamoto (may he rest in peace) knew this going in.

"I have traveled widely in America my friends! Their industrial might is awsome"

Actually....the mindset was the bushido way. They'd inflict few losses, but few soldiers would fire on them and so many would overwhelm the GIs.
You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Seriously, do you KNOW Japanese culture at all? Japanese history?

The American advance would have been non-existant. Japanese kills for American kills was nearing 1:1 at the end of the war.

In the beginning it was 1:22. Japan was learning how to kill us. By the end...they had the advantage.
I think you have your numbers reversed. We were killing more towards the end than they were.

In the beginning it was 1:22. Japan was learning how to kill us. By the end...they had the advantage.

Now where did you get this number at? We were better at killing them not the other way around.

>.> You spelled it wrong.

Civilians armed with sticks, swords, lances and doing suicide attacks on tanks with dynamite (running under and then blowing up) was not exactly effective against GI's but mowing down women and children is a very very hard thing to do. Psychologically it would make you break down and freeze.

NERVUN my sources are right on this. >.>

>.> You spelled it wrong.

Civilians armed with sticks, swords, lances and doing suicide attacks on tanks with dynamite (running under and then blowing up) was not exactly effective against GI's but mowing down women and children is a very very hard thing to do. Psychologically it would make you break down and freeze.

NERVUN my sources are right on this. >.>

Or make you paranoid to shoot at everything that moves.

Canada would've had troops as well as Australia and New Zealand. Don't know about the Philippines though.

"Don't forget the Russians, general."

Japan had 4 million troops by the end. That was more then the USA and they were well supplied and ready.
Their armies were stuck out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on rocks they could not get off or in China. How do you assume they would get back to Japan in time to actually be of any use in defending the home islands without a functioning navy, swim?

All the products were hidden away. (Which is how we missed 7000 planes and all their jet prototypes and the sucidal subs and other nastys they had planned.
*sighs* They had some traps, but when they were gone, they were gone. 7000 planes sounds like a lot till you remember that America was producing that per day. America could afford to keep it up, Japan could not. Eventually they would be defeated, it was a matter of time and how much bloodshed they would accomplish.

American was outmatched, but not outgunned.
You know, I'm going to invite you to Japan and send you to Yasukuni Jinja, they're gonna love you over there. They may actually stick you in their museum as a tourist attraction because I haven't read such weird views of late war history since I went through that place.

Actually....the mindset was the bushido way. They'd inflict few losses, but few soldiers would fire on them and so many would overwhelm the GIs. The American advance would have been non-existant. Japanese kills for American kills was nearing 1:1 at the end of the war.

In the beginning it was 1:22. Japan was learning how to kill us. By the end...they had the advantage.

Golly gee willickers Asbena, I think you forgot about air support entirely. See, Americans have these things called "flying machines" and they drop big things that go BOOM! and kill many people. If Japanese forces had actually overrun American positions, we would have "carpet bombed" them. When we "carpet bomb" an area, it means that we drop lots and lots of bombs there til everything dies. And, if like you say, there would be a gazillion Japanese people in every square mile, they would all die a horrible burning painful death. Isn't it lovely?

On a more serious note, if there were that many Japanese that they were going to destroy the Americans ou of sheer numbers, we could just sit back and blow the shit out of everything that comes in our way.

"Don't forget the Russians, general."


The Russians weren't part of the Invasion plan. They would've done whatever they wanted regardless of plans. They had their own invasion for the home islands.

The Russians weren't part of the Invasion plan. They would've done whatever they wanted regardless of plans. They had their own invasion for the home islands.

True, but the japanese would still have had to fight them. They were, after all, going to invade from the north.

True, but the japanese would still have had to fight them. They were, after all, going to invade from the north.

Which was a very scarey thought.

Now where did you get this number at? We were better at killing them not the other way around.

For every American killed it was 22 Japanese who died. By Okinawa it was closer to 1:3.

For every American killed it was 22 Japanese who died. By Okinawa it was closer to 1:3.

I would love to see proof of this number.

>.> You spelled it wrong.

Civilians armed with sticks, swords, lances and doing suicide attacks on tanks with dynamite (running under and then blowing up) was not exactly effective against GI's but mowing down women and children is a very very hard thing to do. Psychologically it would make you break down and freeze.

NERVUN my sources are right on this. >.>
My spelling is not the point here, nor am I say that Japan was not planning on using its civlian population, believe you me, I am MORE than well aware of that fact.

I simply point out that the whole of the population would not have charged, not at that point in time.

And for some it does make them freeze, for others... well, America's experiances in Vietnam shows that yes, US troops in a gurrila war situation may just start shooting first and asking questions later. This was also a very, very long war and one that had seen a lot of terrible things on both sides. I shudder to think how the troops would have reacted, but getting scared off the home islands isn't an action I see as very likely at all.

True, but the japanese would still have had to fight them. They were, after all, going to invade from the north.

Japan had a plan for them to. Though this was disregarded as a secondary threat as Russia did not have the means of bringing as much across at once at America did.

Which was a very scarey thought.

Yes. Which is why we had to nuke them.

It was for their own good really.

My spelling is not the point here, nor am I say that Japan was not planning on using its civlian population, believe you me, I am MORE than well aware of that fact.

I simply point out that the whole of the population would not have charged, not at that point in time.

And for some it does make them freeze, for others... well, America's experiances in Vietnam shows that yes, US troops in a gurrila war situation may just start shooting first and asking questions later. This was also a very, very long war and one that had seen a lot of terrible things on both sides. I shudder to think how the troops would have reacted, but getting scared off the home islands isn't an action I see as very likely at all.

Uh....according to my sources....they were going to fight with civilians. It says right here.

Uh....according to my sources....they were going to fight with civilians. It says right here.

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT! Question is HOW MANY WOULD ACTUALLY FIGHT!

COMPREHEND!

Yes. Which is why we had to nuke them.

It was for their own good really.

Yep. Did my thesis on it....and I got an A cause I changed the teachers belief that the bomb was humane. Even though everyone yelled and said it was horrible and the worse thing the USA has ever done and it was an abuse of power.

Teacher got like 18 papers on why the bomb was bad, 1 on why it was good. :P

Japan had a plan for them to. Though this was disregarded as a secondary threat as Russia did not have the means of bringing as much across at once at America did.
A secondary threat?! A SECONDARY THREAT?!

*ROTFLAO* Yes, so secondary that the bulk of the Imperial Army spent most of the war lined up on the boarder of Manchuria to keep the Soviets from comming down.

Oh man, you have no idea do you?

Japan had a plan for them to. Though this was disregarded as a secondary threat as Russia did not have the means of bringing as much across at once at America did.

Well, they had a rather large and effective army sitting in manchuria. I am sure they could have figured out how to get some of it across. Especially considering they practically wiped out the entire japanese army in manchuria in 1945.

A secondary threat?! A SECONDARY THREAT?!

*ROTFLAO* Yes, so secondary that the bulk of the Imperial Army spent most of the war lined up on the boarder of Manchuria to keep the Soviets from comming down.

Oh man, you have no idea do you?

Didn't do them much good either as they were rolled up. Still bloody but the Russians really did do a wonderful job in beating them there.

*ROTFLAO* Yes, so secondary that the bulk of the Imperial Army spent most of the war lined up on the boarder of Manchuria to keep the Soviets from comming down.


It didn't work out too good for them though in the end.

It didn't work out too good for them though in the end.

I pity both the Japanese in Manchuria and Asbena for not knowing WWII history.

A secondary threat?! A SECONDARY THREAT?!

*ROTFLAO* Yes, so secondary that the bulk of the Imperial Army spent most of the war lined up on the boarder of Manchuria to keep the Soviets from comming down.

Oh man, you have no idea do you?

God you sound familar. Japan was dealing with them, though they didn't consider them a major threat as the Americans were. They were dealing with the Soviets, but they weren't a massive threat to the home islands at that time. IF the military there lost (and they were retreating also to help defend the home island) the Russians would have been a big challenge for them to.

Uh....according to my sources....they were going to fight with civilians. It says right here.
*sighs* Ok, let me spell it out for you. I live in Japan right now, understand that?

Close to where I live is the remains of a civilian camp where women and children had been evacuated from Tokyo. They were not going to fight. My JAPANESE fiancee's father spent the latter part of the war with his family in a cave above Hiroshima where they were hidding from the bombing raids.

I have talked with people who trainned for this invasion, I have seen older junior high schools that have pictures of such things. Believe you me, I have seen the primmary sources for this. I am very, very well aware of what was planned.

And I also know, from talking with many people who were there, a lot didn't want to fight and many, many people had taken off to the hills (like my fiancee's family) in order to avoid the war and the invasion.

Yes, civilians would have been used, I have no doubt of that, but the idea of the whole of the nation rising up is ignoring the realty of what was going on during that time in Japan.

I pity both the Japanese in Manchuria and Asbena for not knowing WWII history.

I know my history. The point was to fight off the Americans so they didn't have to do an unconditional surrender. It would have worked.

God you sound familar. Japan was dealing with them, though they didn't consider them a major threat as the Americans were. They were dealing with the Soviets, but they weren't a massive threat to the home islands at that time. IF the military there lost (and they were retreating also to help defend the home island) the Russians would have been a big challenge for them to.

And then on August 8, 1945 The USSR blitzed across the Manchurian Border and took out that large Manchurian Japanese Army. Yep. Japan had a big problem. Invasion by the allies on one side and Russia on the other.

It didn't work out too good for them though in the end.
Didn't say that it did, that's just where they were and why. Japan was very, very careful though the whole of the China war to avoid provoking the USSR. It's actually one of the few times that the Emperor Showa restrained the mid-level troops, who thought that they could repeat the Russio-Japanese War and take parts of Russia.

I know my history. The point was to fight off the Americans so they didn't have to do an unconditional surrender. It would have worked.

Their plan was to get a peace treaty. That failed utterly.

Didn't say that it did, that's just where they were and why. Japan was very, very careful though the whole of the China war to avoid provoking the USSR. It's actually one of the few times that the Emperor Showa restrained the mid-level troops, who thought that they could repeat the Russio-Japanese War and take parts of Russia.

To be fair, I imagine that the Japanese forces in manchuria were probably in a right shit state at that point. I've read that there were many mutinies, and many units surrendered without firing a shot - understandably so.

God you sound familar. Japan was dealing with them, though they didn't consider them a major threat as the Americans were. They were dealing with the Soviets, but they weren't a massive threat to the home islands at that time. IF the military there lost (and they were retreating also to help defend the home island) the Russians would have been a big challenge for them to.
The Soviet army, after Stalin decided to withdraw from the non-agression treaty between Japan and the USSR, smashed the Imperial Army in China. After Hiroshima (which surprised the hell out of Stalin), the Red Army invaded Japan and took the four most northern islands, a week earlier than planned.

And actually they still haven't given those back and technically WWII is still going on as Japan and Russia never did sign a peace agreement.

This was part of the shock that forced the Japanese to surrender. The Japanese were scared shitless of the Russians, the whole of their war plan in China was designed to not provoke the Soviet Union into attacking.

Now, according to some historians, the main reason for this was the bloody Russio-Japanese War that left both sides hurt and hummiliated the Russians. Japan had been fearing Russian reprisals ever since.

There's also the factor that the Russian people rose against their Emperor and had him killed in the communist revolution. This was really weighing in on the minds of the Imperial Household Ministry as well as the Showa Emperor.

Their plan was to get a peace treaty. That failed utterly.

Actually...it didn't. They got the one wish they wanted. The Emperor to stay the Emperor....even if he is a figurehead now.

Actually...it didn't. They got the one wish they wanted. The Emperor to stay the Emperor....even if he is a figurehead now.

Actually it failed as they were forced to surrender unconditionally.

To be fair, I imagine that the Japanese forces in manchuria were probably in a right shit state at that point. I've read that there were many mutinies, and many units surrendered without firing a shot - understandably so.
Yes, by that point in time moral was... not well actually.

I recently read a look at the Japanese war plan for China and it seems one of the problems was that the mid-level officers who started this mess just really didn't consider the SIZE of China. Because the war was not really planned for, and indeed was forced on the High Command, there was no real preperation as well. What ended up happening is that the Japanese would advance well into China, but when there would be more or less on their own.

Actually it failed as they were forced to surrender unconditionally.

It was unconditional which was conditional actually.

Actually...it didn't. They got the one wish they wanted. The Emperor to stay the Emperor....even if he is a figurehead now.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10675892&postcount=24

It was unconditional which was conditional actually.
No, no it wasn't. It was unconditional.

So? They still got their concern out of the way at least.

So? They still got their concern out of the way at least.
Not when they surrendered they didn't.

Are we on Nagasaki/Hiroshima again Already? I thought it was Gun Control season, Oh well, I suppose its time for my Perennial rant about peace loving culture Vs. reality.

Here it Goes:

We had no Choice, you can argue all you want, but before you say anything, go spend some Effing time in Nippon jack arses, The culture hasn't changed too much since the forties, the only real difference is the peopns worship the companies insted of the emperor and its a lot less of a secret who really runs the country.
In Nippon, in the Nineteen Fourties, a Man who was worshipped and revered as a god made a decision, he was influenced by a group of wealthy people with very few morals. Now then, because this man, who happened to be the God-EMperor of the Empire of the Rising Sun, decided to go to war, first with China, and subsequently with America, his people were ready to die in those wars, why? because for nearly two thousand years, the entire japanese culture was geared towards dying for their emperor, also figuring prominently was that mistakes were (and are) dishonorable and that death is (and was) preferable to dishonor, that means, that when the tides of war changed, the entirety of a very long history was pushing people with very little morals (who like all people with little moral fiber, valued their lives and comfort above the lives and comfort of anybody else) to not admit their mistake, because that would mean there had been a mistake and that they were thus dishonored and must commit Honorable Seppuku or be killed by mobs of peasants who would have realized that these people were on a different moral scale from them and didn't like it. And so, because they liked their lives a little too much for the good of their country, they shut the Emperor up and told everyone they were winning the war, and Because they controlled the Emperor, the people thought the Emperor was saying that Nippon was WInning the war, and because they worshipped and revered the Emperor and for him to lie was unthinkable, they went ahead and believed these people and continued to prepare to die in defense of what they thought was the Emperors honor, If you think the Muslims or the Vietnamese were tenacious, you should read up on some Nipponese history concerning WW2, virtually every home was stocked with weapons and ammunition as women and children and old men (because there weren't any young men left) trained to defend the Emperor.
This is roughly the state of affairs before Truman dropped the two bombs. If any american soldier so much as thought about stepping foot on any of the Nipponese home islands, he and his whole regiment would have been met by a bonsai charge of hundred of whatever peasant was left in Nippon that could physically bear arms, and each successinve wave of marines would have faced the same thing until either there were no more marines, or there were no more Nipponese. In fact, the only reason the Nuclear Bombs made the Nipponese surrender, was because several of the men in charge of the Emperor were in nagasaki seeing to their business interests and the rest were mostly abroad, so that whent he Emperor got word of what had happened, he was able to make a personal broadcast to the Nipponese people letting them know that in his divine wisdom, he had seen that the war was over and kindly stepped down from god-hood.


ANd of Course, A pair of Nuclear Bombs was not the worst thing that Happened to Nippon by a long shot, you should look up Doolittles raids, and the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo if you want something to really bash americans about, Of course, all American Attrocities against Nippon, should be balanced by such wonderful events as the Rape of Nanjing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanjing) and some of what the Nipponese did while the owned Manchuria

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10675892&postcount=24

Game set match in favor of those who know what they are actually talking about :D

ANd of Course, A pair of Nuclear Bombs was not the worst thing that Happened to Nippon by a long shot, you should look up Doolittles raids, and the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo if you want something to really bash americans about, Of course, all American Attrocities against Nippon, should be balanced by such wonderful events as the Rape of Nanjing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanjing) and some of what the Nipponese did while the owned Manchuria

Actually, the Doolittle RAID (singular as it was only one raid) did very little damage to them structurally.

Ya the militarists didn't like that fact. Though it does go to show how far they were to go. If you thought Vietnam was bad....Japan was going to cost 1.2 million American lives in the first 180 days according to OUR estimates. Japan was going to lose 5 million+ by our estimates to. Though the military KNEW civilians would attack and by the thousands. They had no idea about how far it would go.

When you'll strap a bomb to your body and run under a tank to take it out or blow up a building and multiply it by the thousands...it'll shock you completely. Think about all the terrorist bombings...x1000....then think about how the troops will be.

Actually, the Doolittle RAID (singular as it was only one raid) did very little damage to them structurally.

It was a morale booster mainly.

It was a morale booster mainly.

yes it was and it led to Coral Sea which was a tactical defeat for the US followed by Midway which was a Strategic and tactical victory for the United States.

The bombings were unnecessary simply because Japan was already defeated, but no, we had to demand unconditional surrender. A peace could have been negotiated, I’m sure.

Japan would have fought to the last fricken baby. In fact, during the signing of the treaty on the (correct me if I'm wrong) USS Missouri, the Japanese had 6 zeros ready to make a kamakazi run on it.

You're verry wrong.

Japan would have fought to the last fricken baby. In fact, during the signing of the treaty on the (correct me if I'm wrong) USS Missouri, the Japanese had 6 zeros ready to make a kamakazi run on it.

You're verry wrong.

You have proof of the bolded part?

Ya Japan was never going to quit if they were going to be enslaved to America or lose the Emperor. America calls it unconditional....but seriously we were going to lose many many lives and Japan would lose many more all over it.

The nuclear bombs were major hits....but they still did not really match the horrors of fire-bombing. The power of a SINGLE bomb and the after effects was bad, but fire bombing was even worse. (Also we only had 2 bombs at the point...)

I often wonder if the bombs hadn't been dropped, if we'd have ended up with a North and South Japan.

Judging by experience with other similar entities, that would have been fun.

You have proof of the bolded part?

Japan always had a back-up. They did Pearl Harbor during diplomacy in Washington. Though they were always ready to finish the job should things go out of hand.

Japan always had a back-up. They did Pearl Harbor during diplomacy in Washington. Though they were always ready to finish the job should things go out of hand.

I think they got out of hand after their disasterous military defeat in the Philippine Sea.

:headbang:
It is unblievable that this lame thread actually lasted for more than 10 pages.
Why do people love to talk so much about something they know nothing about?

:headbang:
It is unblievable that this lame thread actually lasted for more than 10 pages.
Why do people love to talk so much about something they know nothing about?

I know what I'm talking about. Why did you waste your 1st post by posting in a thread that you do not care about?

:headbang:
It is unblievable that this lame thread actually lasted for more than 10 pages.
Why do people love to talk so much about something they know nothing about?

Because it is another thread where one can bash America.

Oh does anyone recall that Japan had the bomb also?

Order of nuclear powers was America, Japan, Russia. They were GOING TO NUKE US.

Oh does anyone recall that Japan had the bomb also?

Order of nuclear powers was America, Japan, Russia. They were GOING TO NUKE US.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NOW THIS IS FUNNY! *ROTFLMFAO*

Japan had the bomb! *dies of laughter*

No they didn't.

Oh does anyone recall that Japan had the bomb also?

Order of nuclear powers was America, Japan, Russia. They were GOING TO NUKE US.

It has to be proven that they successfully tested a nuclear weapon. Although they did have a delivery method; submarines into American ports.

I think they got out of hand after their disasterous military defeat in the Philippine Sea.

Lol yes.....they got their butt kicked on that one. Midway also.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NOW THIS IS FUNNY! *ROTFLMFAO*

Japan had the bomb! *dies of laughter*

No they didn't.

There actually is a fair bit of evidence to show that they were very close to making one, if not actually completed one and tested it in Korea. In North Korea as a matter of fact, the area where it is said to have occured was quickly taken over by the Russians and is still a top secret site in the North today.

Lol yes.....they got their butt kicked on that one. Midway also.

Actually, Philippine Sea was really the nail in the coffin as it depleted much of their air reserves.

400 Japanese Aircraft destroyed compared to under 30 American planes.

Not to mention they lost a couple of more carriers as well.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NOW THIS IS FUNNY! *ROTFLMFAO*

Japan had the bomb! *dies of laughter*

No they didn't.

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

The bomb test was August 12th 1945. The war ended 3 days later. We haven't found much proof....but they had it and it was more advanced then the germans.

There actually is a fair bit of evidence to show that they were very close to making one, if not actually completed one and tested it in Korea. In North Korea as a matter of fact, the area where it is said to have occured was quickly taken over by the Russians and is still a top secret site in the North today.

I know they were working on it It is a known fact that they were. However, I actually doubt they had the bomb.

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

The bomb test was August 12th 1945. The war ended 3 days later. We haven't found much proof....but they had it and it was more advanced then the germans.

*begins to knit waiting for the website to load.

I know they were working on it It is a known fact that they were. However, I actually doubt they had the bomb.

Well they had two bomb programs, one was destroyed in Tokyo during the fire bombings I believe and the other was alive and well in Korea. It was a pretty small bomb that they are said to have tested, but still a nuke.

Of course, there is also speculation that Germany tested a small nuclear weapon too before the end of the war.

Well they had two bomb programs, one was destroyed in Tokyo during the fire bombings I believe and the other was alive and well in Korea. It was a pretty small bomb that they are said to have tested, but still a nuke.

I await full and undeniable proof of its existence.

*begins to knit waiting for the website to load.

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

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/ww2/atomicbomb.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program
http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-atomic-program

I await full and undeniable proof of its existence.

There is no such thing as full and undeniable proof. Why does it matter if they had one anyways?

I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah? I guess I should thank you and Asbena for enlightening me with your educated conversation. :D

Well they had two bomb programs, one was destroyed in Tokyo during the fire bombings I believe and the other was alive and well in Korea. It was a pretty small bomb that they are said to have tested, but still a nuke.

Of course, there is also speculation that Germany tested a small nuclear weapon too before the end of the war.

Yes...it was quite small, but they wanted a bomb larger then the Little Boy one. They were going to drop it on our invading fleet and our bases and cities.

Germany wanted to nuke New York, New York. >.> Though their project was arguablely the first successful one, they DID give the uranium to the japanese.

Actually, Philippine Sea was really the nail in the coffin as it depleted much of their air reserves.

400 Japanese Aircraft destroyed compared to under 30 American planes.

Not to mention they lost a couple of more carriers as well.

Umm....How did they have 12,000 by the end of the war then? >.>
THEY WERE SAVING THEM FOR KETSU-GO.

1. If Tokyo had been bombed, there would have been no one to surrender and thus the war would have gone on.
2. So many Japanese planes were left because of their secret facility inside a mountain.
3. Blockade of the home isles would have resulted in many more casulties the both A-Bombs, Japan had hardly any farming to speak of.
4. The bombs were dropped to save american lives, not japanese.
5. The war had to end soon, otherwise the soviets would have taken Japan.
6. The death toll of invading Japan would have been at about 1 million for allied forces and near annilation for the Japanese.

1. If Tokyo had been bombed, there would have been no one to surrender and thus the war would have gone on.
2. So many Japanese planes were left because of their secret facility inside a mountain.
3. Blockade of the home isles would have resulted in many more casulties the both A-Bombs, Japan had hardly any farming to speak of.
4. The bombs were dropped to save american lives, not japanese.
5. The war had to end soon, otherwise the soviets would have taken Japan.
6. The death toll of invading Japan would have been at about 1 million for allied forces and near annilation for the Japanese.

1. It was fire-bombed.
2. You don't fit 12,000 planes in a mountain. They have MANY facilities across Japan, jets were in the mountain.
3. In the words of MacArthur, "Blockading only chokes, but doesn't kill."
4. Meant to save both.
5. Soviets wanted Japan's nuclear secrets, they weren't going to take Japan until they had taken everything else...and not without a fight.
6. Wrong. Completely wrong.

Ah, the desire to demonize Japan never dies.
(Picks up tea cup. Sips with pinky extended.)
I suppose your grandfathers must have told you mesmerizing tales about the Great Game you missed?
I guess you chaps must be itching to nuke Japan again.
(Puts down tea cup and toys with sugar bowl.)
You know....(glancing over to the cricket match)... if I didn't know better, I would say you people were motivated by racism.
:cool:

Actually, Japan dropped the Atomic Bomb program in favor of a "Death Ray" becuase they believed the nuclear bomb was not feasible. :eek: Scary? Not really. It would be impoosible to build nad would take all of the worlds power. It was on a program called "Weird Weapons" on either the Military Channel or on one of the History Channels.

Sources.....if not, we don't listen. :P

Besides I <3 Japan.

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan? Do people really think that there was a better option that could have been used? Yes there were tens of thousands killed in those cities when the weapons were used but how many people would have been killed by conventional weapons? There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run. All major cities in Germany were bombed flat killing many civilians along with the attack on Dresden which I'm told had no military value and was done only to kill civilians. Many people died at once which I suppose horrifies people but it is still better then what may have happened if Truman decided not to use the weapons.

there are many reasons....some say we did it to beat the russians from "helping us win" over there...which we found unacceptable for strategic reasons...in the post war days..

i agree it saved countless lives(we killed more in dresden and in the tokyo firebombings then in the atomic bombings)

but nevertheless..it was a horrific event in human history.

yes it saved alot,and i mean alot of young marines and japenese..which is why i support it..but knowing what we know now..never again i say.

it was a different time we cant pretend to understand thru monday morning quarterbacking...

was it horrible and wrong..yes

was it neccassary for the times..yes

i lost alot of grandparents and a parent in the 2 wars...so i cant pretend to understand...but it was a fight to the death with slimy politics mixed in.

bottom line to me...it was justified...only for the reasons i have stated...an ugly,ugly war..possible millions of deaths on both sides,and the political repercussions involved.

200,000 or 2 million+. What is better?

You realize that you "proof" of a Japanese atomic bomb is hearsay, urban myth, over heard conversations, and has been debunked, do you not?

You realize that you "proof" of a Japanese atomic bomb is hearsay, urban myth, over heard conversations, and has been debunked, do you not?

Heh, you could say the same thing about the bulk of the reports on the Rape of Nanking. That doesn't make the incident any nicer.

If any american soldier so much as thought about stepping foot on any of the Nipponese home islands, he and his whole regiment would have been met by a bonsai charge of hundred of whatever peasant was left in Nippon that could physically bear arms
Ok, ignoring the obviously racist and flat out wrong parts of your rant, I admit to being floored by this.

A bonsai charge? Bonsai?! You mean the Japanese were going to attack the allied forces with small drawf trees carefully sculpted into pleasing shapes and potted in a small ceramic decorative pot?
*Falls to the ground laughing histerically* Dear Kamisama... Oh man. I think, perhaps, you meant banzai, the traditional shout that means "May you live 10,000 years!"

Bonsai charge... jesh... :D

Heh, you could say the same thing about the bulk of the reports on the Rape of Nanking. That doesn't make the incident any nicer.
The Rape of Nanking is actually documented and actual proof has been shown. A working Japanese atomic bomb has not been so.

Personally I think they forgot to read the bottom of their Wiki article.

Ah, the desire to demonize Japan never dies.
(Picks up tea cup. Sips with pinky extended.)
I suppose your grandfathers must have told you mesmerizing tales about the Great Game you missed?
I guess you chaps must be itching to nuke Japan again.
(Puts down tea cup and toys with sugar bowl.)
You know....(glancing over to the cricket match)... if I didn't know better, I would say you people were motivated by racism.
:cool:
Think you should have went to history class that day, Osck, if you really believe that. :rolleyes:

The Rape of Nanking is actually documented and actual proof has been shown. A working Japanese atomic bomb has not been so.


Sure, if you are talking about the massacre per se, but a lot of the individual claims about the incident (like the beheading contest) have been proven false. My point is, after so many years, people still love to get upset about these things.

The Japanese nuke is just a rumour (with very little substanciation to support it) spread by a bunch of racists back in the days when anti-Japanese sentiment was justified. But people still love to get mad over it.

Wake up guys. This is the 21st century.

Sure, if you are talking about the massacre per se, but a lot of the individual claims about the incident (like the beheading contest) have been proven false. My point is, after so many years, people still love to get upset about these things.
Um... the beheading contest was actually documented.

Unless you mean the widescale one.

Um... the beheading contest was actually documented.
.

Yeah, in 1946. By 1955, it was proven not only physically impossible (with antique Japanese swords the soldiers carried for luck), but the story was a fiction, the author was a communist, the Japanese soldiers (who had long since been hanged) were clerks who never actually saw combat and the evidence was dismissed by the International War Tribuneral but the Americans handed over the Japanese guys to the Chinese anyway. Even Chinese historians dispute it today (except Iris Chiang).

It is amazing how many suckers still believe this shit. But what is more amazing is that people actually get ANGRY talking about it. Like when they talk about the Japanese nuke or the Japanese emperor.

It is totally wierd how people can be so upset about things that didn't happen in an era before they were even born.

I'm not terribly fond of bombs, seeing as I'm a pacifist. But Hiroshima and Nagaski were particularly horrible because they killed many innocent civilians and served no real purpose within the war.

Well, the thing is, there where legit military targets in those cities. Also, when we hit, it was in the morning so that less people would be at the ship yards we where trying to hit. If you ever want to know why Hiroshima is the one everybody knows so well, then you have to understand that we missed our target in Hiroshima, but we hit it in Nagasaki.

And also, Japan would not have surrendered otherwise. For centuries, the Japanese where ruled by a class of people who would commit sepuku rather then surrender. This theory of Honorable Suicide could be seen at Okinawa in which people would jump into the seas so that they could escape the United States, whom the Military had apinted as monsters.

If you have ever seen footage from Japan near the end of the war, they where training kids to fight. The war would have been a virtual genocide, as the Japanese would never have stopped fighting. In fact, a few years ago they came across an Island in the Pacific that still contained Japanese Soldiers who tried to kill the people who came ashore. The Invasion would have been extremely bloody.

And as for the USSR, look at Potsdam. At the Confrence there, Truman said, "We have this new weapon, and we plan to use it." Stalin's response? "I know." It was meant as a threat to the Soviet Union.

If you ever want to know why Hiroshima is the one everybody knows so well, then you have to understand that we missed our target in Hiroshima, but we hit it in Nagasaki.

Ground Zero in Nagasaki was an elementary school playground, as was originally intended. Go there and check it out yourself.

I'm quite aware, thank you.

And by the way, one could interpret the fact that they killed themselves as meaning that if things went down to the wire, Japanese civilians are still civilians and prefer to end their lives in "peace", rather than get their bodies mangled by a machine gun.

*snip*

And I'm still looking for anyone to actually give me the reason why it isn't necessary to actually appologise and make amends for the bombing, in both countries. Yes, one can argue that it was necessary. Yes, one can argue that it saved more lives than it destroyed.

But how does that make the murder of these civilians any better? Why does it mean that their lives aren't worth the acknowledgement by the Allied governments?

For the first part, try and find some videos of the Japanese Suicides on History Channel.com. Nothing about the way they died, jumping from cliffs onto sharp pointy rocks, could be considered peaceful. Especially not for the children who where pushed onto them by their parents.

And as for apologising, while doing research for a manga, I came across a story on the American Embassy Homepage, that the United States has offered up an apology on the day of hiroshima for some odd years now. The Japanese government allways accepts, and many teens in Japan who pay attention to that part of their history understand the US reasons. so most of those who get angry are anti-war, anti-nuke americans.