NationStates Jolt Archive

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

please cite your source. Name, article, place of publish, date last updated, and URL. I want to see evidence of this.

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).
Did anyone bother to tell the Japanese government of this? They seem to be operating under the assumption that it did indeed happen.

Or, at least that's what the judge said in recently rejecting a claim from the families of both men that the contest never happened and to say it did defames the men.

Presiding Judge Akio Doi said it is difficult to prove the news articles were based on a fabricated incident because one of the soldiers made remarks indicating his role in the contest.

Doi also said the reports cannot be called "clearly false," as historians have yet to agree on whether the contest actually occurred.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/news/nn08-2005/nn20050824a2.htm

As for getting annoyed about this, this is NS General, it's what we do here.

Ground Zero in Nagasaki was an elementary school playground, as was originally intended. Go there and check it out yourself.
HUH? Nagasaki was a secondary target, the target that Boxcar saw was an industrial area, but it exploded over a tennis court. There IS an elementary school nearby now though.
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/m2-1e.html

Or, at least that's what the judge said in recently rejecting a claim from the families of both men that the contest never happened and to say it did defames the men.

Of course the judge ruled that the newspaper was innocent until proven guilty. Had the men been on trial for their lives, they would have been aquitted for lack of evidence. The remarks the soldiers made got the newspaper off the hook because they were in defence. Had they been the prosecutors, it would have been noted that the remarks were made while in detention in an enemy prison camp. You need solid evidence to prove it either way.

it exploded over a tennis court. There IS an elementary school nearby now though.

My bad, it was a tennis court, not a school yard (http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/m2-1e.html).

As for getting annoyed about this, this is NS General, it's what we do here.

Doesn't make it any less amazing.

Japan could'ave surrendered unconditionally when asked to do so the first time.

They didn't.

Other side kicked their behinds in a major league way - which is as the Russians would say a matter of toughski shitsky.


If anyone has a problem with that, such a person is invited to be fruitful and multiply in a solitary way.

the bombs were one of the biggest successes in WWII without the big boy and the little boy the war would have dragged on for at least 2 more years and have killed millions of american troops and red army troops.

the bombs were one of the biggest successes in WWII without the big boy and the little boy the war would have dragged on for at least 2 more years and have killed millions of american troops and red army troops.

Not to mention the death of almost every man and child on Honshu Island (The Big Island, home of Tokyo, where the Invasion was going to hit). I am still amazed at some of the footage of little kids being trained to dig holes in the road, and sit in them with who knows how many punds of munitions, waiting for an American Tank to rumpble over head to detonate their bombs. don't believe me, try and find an article on civilians at war in World War II, we watched a video in History Class in which they had an old man who was trained to sit in one of those things give an interview.

And as for the Rape of Nanking being propaganda, how do you explain eyewitness testimony from soldiers, video footage from Japanese Film crew, and other such evidence. The above cited video even had an old man who had participated in the Rape of Nanking apologising for his actions on the video its self.

The bombings were unnecessary simply because Japan was already defeated, but no, we had to demand unconditional surrender.

Well for some reason the Japanese didn't think so since even after Hiroshima, the Japanese military was unwilling to discuss surrender.

A peace could have been negotiated, I’m sure.

So what peace do you think could have been negotiated? One in which Japan would have willingly given up it's territorial conquests in China, Burma, Korea, Indochina? Do you honestly think the Japanese government would be willing to do that? Keep in mind they didn't think they were defeated and that they would force us into peace talks by attrition and were perfectly willing to sacrifice thousands to do it. Read the campaigns of Iwo and Okinawaw if you doubt the fanaticism of the Japanese soldier.

I find it amazing that two generations removed from that conflict can so casually pass judgment on decisions made to end the war considering they have nothing to lose by making the wrong decision.

Also keep in mind that we, the ALLIES, also demanded unconditional surrender for Germany as well and they were also bombed back to the stone age too. Funny no one seems to have any remorse over that. Except maybe the Germans.

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.

Hey great idea. Lets starve thousands of them to death slowly instead of bombing them.

Brilliant!

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.

The US didn't sign the treaty because Wilson along with the Senate believed it was flawed and would only result in future conflicts. His 14 points, he believed would have created a more democratic Germany but the French were adamant about punitive measures (payback for the Franco-Prussian war). So much for French idealism.

Germany formally surrendered and yes it was presented by Jodel who was acting representative of Admiral Donitz, Hitler's successor who was the acting head of state.

Germany was formally occupied and demilitirized after WW2 and was under military administration by the allies powers. None of that happened after WW1. Germany's military was still intact, other than the French occupying the Rhineland for a short period, Germany was never actually occupied or administered by a foreign power.

Also keep in mind that we, the ALLIES, also demanded unconditional surrender for Germany as well and they were also bombed back to the stone age too. Funny no one seems to have any remorse over that.

I don't think it's about remorse or should be. Placing blame or finding justifications for something that happened when the world was a different place is a futile excercise anyway.

When people say "No more Hiroshima", they are just expressing the desire not to be nuked themselves. It's about the future, not the past.

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 would argue that the countries invaded and occupied by the Axis power would be in disagreement. Perhaps in learning how Hiroshima was superfulous, did you learn anything about the Holocaust, the rape of Nanking, the 20 million alone killed in Russia by the Nazis? You know, if you actually study the second world war, you will see that the allies bent over backwards to avoid war. Heck, even when it was raging, the US still wanted to stay out of it was was neutral, up until Japan decided to drag us in kicking and screaming after Pearl Harbor.

So as you are a pacifist, I am curious. After negotiating and negotiating, do you still sit back and do nothing when attacked or do you just roll over and let them kill you? Should we have just let the Japanese attack us and do nothing? Should Hitler have simply been left unchecked?

Seems to me you level quite a bit of moral equivalence in your argument basically equating everyone in the conflict as evil yet there was only one party that actually started the war.

Seems to me you level quite a bit of moral equivalence in your argument basically equating everyone in the conflict as evil yet there was only one party that actually started the war.

Which side would that be? America rejected a Japanese proposal that amounted to nothing less than a conditional surrender before the war started. After handing the infamous "Hull Note" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Note) to the Japanese delegation, the secretary of state Cordel Hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull) said to an army general, "You take it from here". Hull knew he was picking a fight.

That is irrelevant, of course. Which side started the war doesn't have anything to do with it. LondoMolari is right that you should not just sit back and negotiate when someone is murdering masses of people. It is regretable that the world did just that when China and the Soviet Union, two major members of the allies, embarked on mass killings within their own borders after they won the war. The Chinese having killed a lot more of their countrymen than the Japanese ever did.

Of course the judge ruled that the newspaper was innocent until proven guilty. Had the men been on trial for their lives, they would have been aquitted for lack of evidence. The remarks the soldiers made got the newspaper off the hook because they were in defence. Had they been the prosecutors, it would have been noted that the remarks were made while in detention in an enemy prison camp. You need solid evidence to prove it either way.
"I killed only four or five with sword in the real combat.... After we captured an enemy trench, we'd tell them, "Ni Lai Lai." The Chinese soldiers were stupid enough to come out the trench toward us one after another. We'd line them up and cut them down from one end to the other." - Sub-Lieutenant Noda, speech at a Japanese elementary school about the beheading contest.

And (In Japanese) eyewhitness accounts plus the account of Sub-Lieutenant Mukai, made long before being turned over to the Nanking tribunal:
http://andesfolklore.hp.infoseek.co.jp/intisol/hyakunin2.htm

And were's your evidence that this didn't happen, was a fabrication, and that all historians except for Chang discount this?

Doesn't make it any less amazing.
Might want to find another board then. The Hiroshima/Nagasaki threads aren't even the worst of the lot when it comes to beating a dead horse.

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

Besides I <3 Japan.

You may love japan but you sure don't know much about military tactics.

Which side would that be? America rejected a Japanese proposal that amounted to nothing less than a conditional surrender before the war started. After handing the infamous "Hull Note" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Note) to the Japanese delegation, the secretary of state Cordel Hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull) said to an army general, "You take it from here". Hull knew he was picking a fight.

If you mean proposals A and B, they did not amount to a conditional surrender, they were a grab and hold manuver that Japan pretty much knew the US would not accept.

And the Hull note has been used as Japan's reason for war but doesn't actually stand up when read (though, interestingly, the translation of the Hull Note used by Tojo seems to have been monkeyed with to make it sound much more ultimatic than it would be read in English. Japanese historians have been debating if this was delberate or acidental).

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.

And yet, one more ignorant Historian who doesn't know what they are talking about :rolleyes:

The US didn't sign the treaty because Wilson along with the Senate believed it was flawed and would only result in future conflicts. His 14 points, he believed would have created a more democratic Germany but the French were adamant about punitive measures (payback for the Franco-Prussian war). So much for French idealism.

Actually it was signed but it was never ratified because Wilson made one major political mistake and it cost him votes in the Senate.

Which side would that be? America rejected a Japanese proposal that amounted to nothing less than a conditional surrender before the war started. After handing the infamous "Hull Note" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Note) to the Japanese delegation, the secretary of state Cordel Hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull) said to an army general, "You take it from here". Hull knew he was picking a fight.

You have a nice twisted view of History here. And I mean it is a nice twisted view too. Hull knew that negotiations were going nowhere. He was still negotiating up to the time he heard of Pearl Harbor being bombed.

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.

Are you saying that the Allies should not have tried to stop Hitler? That when Japan attacked the United States that we should not have defended ourselves? If Britain and France had just stood up to Hitler instead of appeasing him then perhaps WWII would not have happened. It certainly would have been much quicker to stop him before he was prepared to begin his conquests.

If Britain and France had just stood up to Hitler instead of appeasing him then perhaps WWII would not have happened. It certainly would have been much quicker to stop him before he was prepared to begin his conquests.
WWI had ended, and Britain needed time to bring itself country back to former glory, and so, it was nearly impossible to fight Hitler.
Besides, if America had not followed a policy of isolationism (ignoring Europe, refusing to join the League of Nations), Hitler would have known that the only real threat to his ambitions in Europe (except from the Soviets, but the Nazi-Soviet Pact saw to that) would stop him.

WWI had ended, and Britain needed time to bring itself country back to former glory, and so, it was nearly impossible to fight Hitler.
Besides, if America had not followed a policy of isolationism (ignoring Europe, refusing to join the League of Nations), Hitler would have known that the only real threat to his ambitions in Europe (except from the Soviets, but the Nazi-Soviet Pact saw to that) would stop him.

Blame America? Well that is always a popular strategy. The simple fact is that Hitler began violating the Versailles Treaty about as soon as he came into power. Britain and France could have stepped on Hitler before any serious fighting would have occured.

Blame America? Well that is always a popular strategy. The simple fact is that Hitler began violating the Versailles Treaty about as soon as he came into power. Britain and France could have stepped on Hitler before any serious fighting would have occured.

That's true, France alone had a stnading army almost twice that of Germany when Hitler came to power. France was just to busy licking their wounds to notice. and Neville Chamberlain was too busy trying to appease Hitler to actually be willing to put his foot down.

If you ask me, if Winston Churchill had been the PM of the not so united UK, WWII would have been over before it started, no one would have the bomb, and the world would be a slightly better place.

And as for Pearl Harbor, the Secretary of State was still negotiating with the Japanese Ambassador, very calmly too, when he heard news of Pearl Harbor. Something everyone seems to forget is that the millitary had seized all control of the government by the end of WWI. They where planning for Pearl Harbor even before Hitler declared his Blitzkreig. They had even found a harbor that looked almost exactly like Pearl a couple years before the war. They developed the Zero specifically to fight off American Fighters, and developed torpedos that could move through the water after a short dive speciffically because Peral Harbor was not deep enough. War with Japan was inevitable. The only difference between our Reality, and one in which Hitler never got a chance to come to power, was how long it took us to fight Japan, and get to Honshu Island, the big Island.

If you ask me, if Winston Churchill had been the PM of the not so united UK, WWII would have been over before it started, no one would have the bomb, and the world would be a slightly better place.

The man did spend the '30's warning Britain of the threat of Germany didn't the? The politicos all just assumed that he was a scaremonger, that war wouldn't come again! It wouldn't, HONEST! :rolleyes:

Too bad no one in Europe had a spine.

The man did spend the '30's warning Britain of the threat of Germany didn't the? The politicos all just assumed that he was a scaremonger, that war wouldn't come again! It wouldn't, HONEST! :rolleyes:

Too bad no one in Europe had a spine.

very few actually had a spine back then! Even today, few nations have spines to stand up to evil.

very few actually had a spine back then! Even today, few nations have spines to stand up to evil.
It helps if evil is armed with nothing more substantial than mangoes.

very few actually had a spine back then! Even today, few nations have spines to stand up to evil.

The thing is that back then the danger was quite obvious and people wanted to bury their heads in the sand to the coming world conflageration. Today with our war on terrorism and in Iraq I really do not see an obvious immediate danger but simply an overblown threat. Should Middle Eastern states come together to reform the old Caliphate or something like that which proclaims "Death to America!" then I will recognize a threat.

Wow, this has really gotten off topic. :eek:

Sub-Lieutenant Noda, speech at a Japanese elementary school about the beheading contest.

And (In Japanese) eyewhitness accounts plus the account of Sub-Lieutenant Mukai, made long before being turned over to the Nanking tribunal:
http://andesfolklore.hp.infoseek.co.jp/intisol/hyakunin2.htm


That's very interesting NERVUN. Were those accounts actually used in the trial? I had no idea an article in Shukan Kinyobi could stand up in a court of law. Much less an article in the same newspaper that is accused of fabricating a story used as evidence that the said story was real. Also, the link you provided specifically states that the original letter detailing the account was never found. I honestly didn't know any of this. How did Mukai, a mathematician for the artillary department, end up chopping off heads in the battle field? Were there any explanations?

You seem to be pretty well informed about this sort of thing. But my original point was, well, for a person so eager to amass so much information on the guilt of Japan, you seemed to have studied nothing about the story of the other side. It's like listening to a Mac advocate telling you why Macs are superior to PCs. If you were objective, you would also be able to see shortcomings of the Japan demonizers. Perhaps even argue from both sides. But alas, Japs are automatically guilty for being Japanese. And that is the way it always was and always will be.

You are digging pretty deep for excuses to hate us. Why do people like you love to hate us so much?

That's very interesting NERVUN. Were those accounts actually used in the trial? I had no idea an article in Shukan Kinyobi could stand up in a court of law. Much less an article in the same newspaper that is accused of fabricating a story used as evidence that the said story was real. Also, the link you provided specifically states that the original letter detailing the account was never found. I honestly didn't know any of this. How did Mukai, a mathematician for the artillary department, end up chopping off heads in the battle field? Were there any explanations?
Well, one, this was what was used in court (not the web page), as to what form this took, I have no idea.

For the actual contest itself, Sub-Lieutenant Noda's comments seems to indicate that the people getting chopped were Chinese POWs, not met on the battlefield at all. But I did do some searching and found nothing to actually contradicts the fact that this happened, beyond Japanese rightwing manga, which is hardly proof.

You seem to be pretty well informed about this sort of thing. But my original point was, well, for a person so eager to amass so much information on the guilt of Japan, you seemed to have studied nothing about the story of the other side. It's like listening to a Mac advocate telling you why Macs are superior to PCs. If you were objective, you would also be able to see shortcomings of the Japan demonizers. Perhaps even argue from both sides. But alas, Japs are automatically guilty for being Japanese. And that is the way it always was and always will be.
Which is just damn funny because in this thread I tackled the notion that the Japanese were worse than the Nazis, in another I have answered (again) the problems with the Yasukuni Jinja and the textbook flap. Actually, I spend a great deal of time in these threads attempting to remove the sterotypes of Japan and Japanese.

I am well aware that the oposition is the CCP and that many things the CCP comes up with is designed to make the CCP look good or as the victim. But I have also seen Japan do the same.

I don't hate Japan or the Japanese people. If I did, I would be in a whole hell of a lot of trouble right now, seeing how I live in Japan and am engaged to a Japanese native.

You are digging pretty deep for excuses to hate us. Why do people like you love to hate us so much?
Like I said, I don't hate Japan. While I have issues with the current hatefest from South Korea and China, I also have to admit that they have a point (Just as PM Koizumi has a point that those two countries are doing so for other reasons beyond Japan's WWII guilt), Japan really has not come to terms with what it did in WWII. Going to Yasukuni Jinja and seeing the museum there showed me THAT. Seeing manga about how noble and honorable the Imperial forces were and how Korean women WANTED to be raped has also showed me that.

But I also see that most Japanese know and are sorry for their actions.

But, in any case, you attempted to state things that were false from one side of the spectrum, I corrected you. Just like I corrected people above you in the thread who attemped to state that Japan is a nation of mindless drones who followed the Emperor without thinking.

Thanks for the nice closure to the thread Nervun. :cool:

God. Not THIS shit again! GROAN! :(

The man did spend the '30's warning Britain of the threat of Germany didn't the?
He sure did...

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
~ "Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
~ "Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

God. Not THIS shit again! GROAN! :(

Come on, you can see that some have really jumped into this topic. Besides isn't this prefrable to another abortion thread?

He sure did...

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
~ "Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
~ "Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

These were from interviews weren't they? I'd like to see the questions to better understand the responses he gave.

God. Not THIS shit again! GROAN! :(
It's the topic that keeps going and going and going and going... :p

At least the the names got spelled right this time.

I can't wait to hear all about how all the Japanese schoolchildren were going to fight the invaders to the bitter end, again. Which of course, as the argument goes (that is if I recall correctly), is why it was more sporting - erm, humane to nuke 'em from 26,000 feet in the air.

Cue Corneliu clucking his tongue disparagingly in 3... 2... 1.

I can't wait to hear all about how all the Japanese schoolchildren were going to fight the invaders to the bitter end, again. Which of course, as the argument goes (that is if I recall correctly), is why it was more sporting - erm, humane to nuke 'em from 26,000 feet in the air.

Cue Corneliu clucking his tongue disparagingly in 3... 2... 1.

*does it just to please Dobbsworld* :D

You actually believe it was sporting that we dropped it? Or are you suggesting that I believe it was more sporting?

I can't wait to hear all about how all the Japanese schoolchildren were going to fight the invaders to the bitter end, again. Which of course, as the argument goes (that is if I recall correctly), is why it was more sporting - erm, humane to nuke 'em from 26,000 feet in the air.
*sighs* Already been covered. Which you would have known if you had read the thread.

I can't wait to hear all about how all the Japanese schoolchildren were going to fight the invaders to the bitter end, again. Which of course, as the argument goes (that is if I recall correctly), is why it was more sporting - erm, humane to nuke 'em from 26,000 feet in the air.

A nuclear bomb was worse then being firebombed? Or the slow conventional bombing? It killed alot of people at once but I believe that it ended up saving more Japanese lives in the end. I think we can all agree if we had to invade it would have been quite ugly.

These were from interviews weren't they? I'd like to see the questions to better understand the responses he gave.
No, he wrote an essay for the magazine. His own thoughts.

He was a conservative, and as such he will always have some level of respect for the strong man who keeps society in order.

*sighs* Already been covered. Which you would have known if you had read the thread.
I couldn't justify the inhumanity of reading the other, what - 290 posts - to my remaining brain cells.

A nuclear bomb was worse then being firebombed? Or the slow conventional bombing? It killed alot of people at once but I believe that it ended up saving more Japanese lives in the end. I think we can all agree if we had to invade it would have been quite ugly.

but people would like us more. Ironic, isn't it?

I can't wait to hear all about how all the Japanese schoolchildren were going to fight the invaders to the bitter end, again. Which of course, as the argument goes (that is if I recall correctly), is why it was more sporting - erm, humane to nuke 'em from 26,000 feet in the air.

Cue Corneliu clucking his tongue disparagingly in 3... 2... 1.

I've got a better idea. If there is a major invasion going on near a large population center, doesn't it make sense that regardless of their incetive to fight and die that a lot of them will be killed in the cross fire?

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 agree completely, and by the way as a New Englander I am a Red Sox fan too!

I'm really iffy on this debate. The reason for this was because both of my grandparents where getting ready to be shipped of to "the great invasion of Japan." If the U.S. had actually invaded Japan, I might have not existed.

I am just going to state this, not sure if it was stated early, but here I go:

The months leading up to the use of the atomic bombs, the plans for how to defeat Japan were being made. After Okinawa and Iwo Jima, most Naval commanders came to the conclusion that to invade Japan would be costly, and both sides would suffer very high casualties. Projected casualties were 500,000 AT THE VERY LEAST by Allied forces, and at the very least, over 2,000,000 Japanese nationals. Now, they turned to a new strategy. Blockade and Bombardment. Basically, the naval encirclement of Japan, and a continued bombing campaign, aimed at transportation systems between Northern and Southern Japan. In 1946, Japan suffered one of the worst rice years in their history, at about a 100 calorie intake per day or less. Had the Blockade and Bombardment strategy been taken, many hundreds of thousands, to millions, would have died due to starvation. The atomic bombs brought an end to any idea of invasion, or Blockade and Bombardment. I still continue to believe that the atomic bombs were the more humane choice, over starvation.

but people would like us more. Ironic, isn't it?
I doubt it, the Japanese aren't too happy about the firebombings either.

I doubt it, the Japanese aren't too happy about the firebombings either.

And they weren't to happy with their government after the war either.

I doubt it, the Japanese aren't too happy about the firebombings either.
I wasn't talking about them. Just people who are agains the bomb.

And they weren't to happy with their government after the war either.
and that my friend is dissilusionment.

and that my friend is dissilusionment.

The japs being upset with their government is disillusionment? :confused:

I agree completely, and by the way as a New Englander I am a Red Sox fan too!

I have high hopes for them this year! :)

I'm really iffy on this debate. The reason for this was because both of my grandparents where getting ready to be shipped of to "the great invasion of Japan." If the U.S. had actually invaded Japan, I might have not existed.

Seems to be a good reason to support the decision to drop the bomb to me.

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 disapprove of bombing cities at all. Civilian casualties are something to be avoided, not sought. The entire point of bombing cities with nuclear weapons is to kill lots of innocent people to display that you really have no concern for the enemy's people, that they are nothing, expendable. To show so little reverence for life that you are willing to push a small button to destroy thousands of relatively innocent people is a display of weakness, of dishonor.

I disapprove of bombing cities at all. Civilian casualties are something to be avoided, not sought. The entire point of bombing cities with nuclear weapons is to kill lots of innocent people to display that you really have no concern for the enemy's people, that they are nothing, expendable. To show so little reverence for life that you are willing to push a small button to destroy thousands of relatively innocent people is a display of weakness, of dishonor.

Then do you condemn the bombings that destroyed most of the cities in Europe as well with Conventional bombs that killed far more people than the 2 bombs combined did?

I disapprove of bombing cities at all. Civilian casualties are something to be avoided, not sought. The entire point of bombing cities with nuclear weapons is to kill lots of innocent people to display that you really have no concern for the enemy's people, that they are nothing, expendable. To show so little reverence for life that you are willing to push a small button to destroy thousands of relatively innocent people is a display of weakness, of dishonor.

I certainly don't approve either but at the time governments were sure that it would destroy the morale of the populations of their enemies. That didn't happen but with an atomic bomb it was a different story. In that time of bombing cities, dropping one big one didn't make much difference. Besides both cities were military targets.

pussh The A-bomb was horrible but japan had it coming. Dose anyone know what they did to China?

Then do you condemn the bombings that destroyed most of the cities in Europe as well with Conventional bombs that killed far more people than the 2 bombs combined did?
Yes. Bombs should be reserved strictly for military targets. If you can't accurately target one or discern one from another, you shouldn't be using the bomb, any bomb.

Yes. Bombs should be reserved strictly for military targets. If you can't accurately target one or discern one from another, you shouldn't be using the bomb, any bomb.

Do you know that we did not have that ability during World War II? Also, define what a military target was back during World War II.

I certainly don't approve either but at the time governments were sure that it would destroy the morale of the populations of their enemies. That didn't happen but with an atomic bomb it was a different story. In that time of bombing cities, dropping one big one didn't make much difference. Besides both cities were military targets.
Not really. The military facilities were towards the outskirts of the cities and sustained only minor damage. The bomb was dropped on the civilian portions.

Not really. The military facilities were towards the outskirts of the cities and sustained only minor damage. The bomb was dropped on the civilian portions.

Which held factories that was arming the japanese war machine as well as suppling the Japanese Army as well.

pussh The A-bomb was horrible but japan had it coming. Dose anyone know what they did to China?
Yes, I do. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."--Ghandi
Doing the same to them makes us as cowardly and dishonorable as they were.

Do you know that we did not have that ability during World War II? Also, define what a military target was back during World War II.
Yes, I know that. That is exactly my point. My definition of a military target is vastly different from theirs. Their idea of a military target was anything in the area occupied by enemy forces.

Which held factories that was arming the japanese war machine as well as suppling the Japanese Army as well.
That doesn't change the fact that they were noncombatants.

Not really. The military facilities were towards the outskirts of the cities and sustained only minor damage. The bomb was dropped on the civilian portions.

I can believe that. The facilites were just an excuese after all the aim was to kill as many people as posible to let the Japanese leaders know what will happen to their country should they continue to fight. Still conventional bombing could easily have killed more people with the added deaths of both Japanese and Americans if an invasion became neccessary.

Not really. The military facilities were towards the outskirts of the cities and sustained only minor damage. The bomb was dropped on the civilian portions.
That's actually not correct as the military portions of both cities were well mixed.

Japan is like that.

Actually, adding to the tragedy, at the time junior high school students and many of the rest of the population of Hiroshima were out of doors clearing houses around military factories and facilities for firebreaks in case of bombing.

Out in the open and exposed, this just added to what happened.

As far as a demonstration making Japan surrender, there is no way. Japan did not even surrender after the first bomb. It took two to realize they were defeated. The Japanize were so devoted to their country the would have flung themselves at us had we invaded killing thousands of US troops.

but we didnt even kill two third the civilians they did in china. pluse we rebuilt their cities after the war.

That's actually not correct as the military portions of both cities were well mixed.

Japan is like that.

Actually, adding to the tragedy, at the time junior high school students and many of the rest of the population of Hiroshima were out of doors clearing houses around military factories and facilities for firebreaks in case of bombing.

Out in the open and exposed, this just added to what happened.
I never said they weren't mixed; I said the military facilities were located out in the less densely populated reaches of the cities, and the bombs were dropped on the more densely populated centers of the cities

but we didnt even kill two third the civilians they did in china. pluse we rebuilt their cities after the war.
More justification. Stop trying to rationalize and justify murder. I'm not saying it wasn't the best possible option, only that I don't like it at all, that I would never approve of using it on real people. Not even combatants. Nor did I claim we never tried to fix what we destroyed.

but we didnt even kill two third the civilians they did in china. pluse we rebuilt their cities after the war.
Are you saying that Japan killed 2/3 of the population of China or are you trying to say America didn't kill 2/3 of the number of Chinese that the Japanese did? :confused:

Yes, I know that. That is exactly my point. My definition of a military target is vastly different from theirs. Their idea of a military target was anything in the area occupied by enemy forces.

And for the technology of the day, you fight according to your tech level.

If I had been in Roosewelt's place in 1944, I would have ramped up the Manhathan Project by a factor of 10. Instead of two I would have made 20 simultaneous atomic attacks against major cities like Osaka & Yokohama instead of regional cities like Hiroshima. The surrender telegram (if there is anyone left to send it) would have arrived within the hour instead of two days afterwards.

I forgot my point - damn.

That doesn't change the fact that they were noncombatants.

Last time I checked the rule book, industrial targets WERE MILITARY TARGETS!

If I had been in Roosewelt's place in 1944, I would have ramped up the Manhathan Project by a factor of 10. Instead of two I would have made 20 simultaneous atomic attacks against major cities like Osaka & Yokohama instead of regional cities like Hiroshima. The surrender telegram (if there is anyone left to send it) would have arrived within the hour instead of two days afterwards.

I forgot my point - damn.

Problem was uranium, technology, and the factory to make the bombs. Besides that, Osaka and Yokohama have been devestated by firebombings as it was.

I never said they weren't mixed; I said the military facilities were located out in the less densely populated reaches of the cities, and the bombs were dropped on the more densely populated centers of the cities
Depends upon what you mean. The headquaters were, indeed, on the outskirts, but there were traning grouds and factories in the middle. Indeed, part of the Peace Park used to be an Imperial Army marching ground.

In any case, for Hiroshima, the target was a T shapped bridge because it was very easy to spot from the air.

They missed and the bomb exploded over a hospital.

For Nagasaki (a secondary target), a break in the cloud cover allowed the bombing crews to see the target, which was a very large industrial plant.

They missed and it exploded over a tennis court.

Either way, the facilities were in denser parts of the cities. Japan REALLY has no sense of urban planning. It added to the body count, sadly.

If I had been in Roosewelt's place in 1944, I would have ramped up the Manhathan Project by a factor of 10. Instead of two I would have made 20 simultaneous atomic attacks against major cities like Osaka & Yokohama instead of regional cities like Hiroshima. The surrender telegram (if there is anyone left to send it) would have arrived within the hour instead of two days afterwards.
The US had huge reactors going but still only managed to produce enough material for three bombs.

There have been a lot of opinions posted on this thread, but I just wanted to know, are your opinions universal?
That is to say, if it weren't Japan and the shoe was on the other foot, would you say that it was just as right (or wrong) to do the same thing?

For the 300 Japanese civillians killed in Dungchow by the Chinese, the Japanese are (said to have) killed 300 thousand Chinese in Nanking.
Sure the Kumingtang were devious, but did the Chinese people deserve that?

And if you said the nukes were justified, would you apply the same reasoning on other cases of enhanced payback? (Like Nanking? Or more recently, Afghanistan or Iraq?)
If the Vietnamese had nukes, would they be justified in dropping 20 of them on the US to attain a victory?

There have been a lot of opinions posted on this thread, but I just wanted to know, are your opinions universal?
That is to say, if it weren't Japan and the shoe was on the other foot, would you say that it was just as right (or wrong) to do the same thing?
If you mean a compleate reversal of the situation with the US having done the same as Japan and Japan is the same position of the US, yes, I would agree.

And if you said the nukes were justified, would you apply the same reasoning on other cases of enhanced payback? (Like Nanking? Or more recently, Afghanistan or Iraq?)
If the Vietnamese had nukes, would they be justified in dropping 20 of them on the US to attain a victory?
Well, I don't particularly feel that the nukes were a just payback. They were not even a direct reason for Japan's surrender, but they did provide the catalist to bring that surrender around at the time it did without further loss of life.

If such a situation was actually mirrored again (and it would be hard to think of such a thing happening), I would think that it would be nessisary, but not right.

Of course, for the atomic bombings, I also think that they were nessisary, but not right either.

More justification. Stop trying to rationalize and justify murder. I'm not saying it wasn't the best possible option, only that I don't like it at all, that I would never approve of using it on real people. Not even combatants. Nor did I claim we never tried to fix what we destroyed.
So what you're saying is that, although dropping the Nukes on Nippon was probably the best option given the situation, you're still going to bi*ch and moan about it because '[you] don't like it'? and you would 'never approve of using it on real people'. So would you had rather stepped back and let the Japanese empire kill hundreds of thousands of americans? or maybe just not even invade and give them a nice pat on the back and send them off to commit more Nanjingesque rapes?
SInce you wouldn't use nukes on real people, would you let the Japanese Rape and pillage their way across the one nation with the most real people on the planet? personally I'd rather get it over with in one bright white flash than to watch or even hear some of the things the Nipponese did to people at Nanjing.


There have been a lot of opinions posted on this thread, but I just wanted to know, are your opinions universal?
That is to say, if it weren't Japan and the shoe was on the other foot, would you say that it was just as right (or wrong) to do the same thing?

For the 300 Japanese civillians killed in Dungchow by the Chinese, the Japanese are (said to have) killed 300 thousand Chinese in Nanking.
Sure the Kumingtang were devious, but did the Chinese people deserve that?

And if you said the nukes were justified, would you apply the same reasoning on other cases of enhanced payback? (Like Nanking? Or more recently, Afghanistan or Iraq?)
If the Vietnamese had nukes, would they be justified in dropping 20 of them on the US to attain a victory?


No, the Japan Situation was unique in the war becasue the Japanese would have fought an invasion to the death, every landing would have been met by insurmountable odds on the home island and because it would be women and children fighting, American soldiers would likely have had severe psychological trauma, if they even survived.
The Situation is also unique from the Iraq/Afghanistan one, although we see the same level of zealotry (suicide bombings and what not Vs. Kamikaze aircraft and boats and Banzai charges), the opposiition is spread outover large rural mountainous areas where even multiple nuclear detonations would have a minimal effect.
If the Vietnamese had had nukes, then instead of invading them we would have nuked them, infact, against a nuclear opponent, America had no real equal, having been the first to design the bomb, America expected every subsequent war to be a nuclear one, dominated by massive bombers loaded with nukes, they were more prepared than any nation could have been at the time even if they had had similiar economies and technological developement as America.

Forgive me for putting my 2 cents in, I'm very tired, but is it possible that there could be any possible occasion when at least some of the people wouldn't react in a negative way to a nuclear war head being detonated in a populated city?

Forgive me for putting my 2 cents in, I'm very tired, but is it possible that there could be any possible occasion when at least some of the people wouldn't react in a negative way to a nuclear war head being detonated in a populated city?

Quite obviously, in the case of Japan, at least some of the people are not reacting in a negative way to a nuclear warhead being detonated in a populated city.

No, the Japan Situation was unique in the war becasue the Japanese would have fought an invasion to the death, every landing would have been met by insurmountable odds on the home island and because it would be women and children fighting, American soldiers would likely have had severe psychological trauma, if they even survived.


Why were they fighting so hard in the first place?

Frankly, your argument doesn't hold any water with me because 1) Americans have fought and killed women and children in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and 2) it sounds suspiciously like you (like so many others) are saying that Japs are the only people in the world you can nuke with a clear concience.

Which side would that be? America rejected a Japanese proposal that amounted to nothing less than a conditional surrender before the war started. After handing the infamous "Hull Note" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Note) to the Japanese delegation, the secretary of state Cordel Hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull) said to an army general, "You take it from here". Hull knew he was picking a fight.


Which side you ask? Er..the Japanese side. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Japan invade China back in 1933? Picking a fight? Seems to me the Japanese did just that. Not sure how you come to the conclusion that asking the Japanese to leave China alone amounted to surrender.


That is irrelevant, of course. Which side started the war doesn't have anything to do with it.

I would argue that it does. To quote the bumper sticker phrase, no Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima may sound flippiant but it doesn't make it less true. in 1941 we had the 17th largest army in the world and were not bucking for world domination by force of arms.


LondoMolari is right that you should not just sit back and negotiate when someone is murdering masses of people. It is regretable that the world did just that when China and the Soviet Union, two major members of the allies, embarked on mass killings within their own borders after they won the war. The Chinese having killed a lot more of their countrymen than the Japanese ever did.

Actually you misquoted me. We should not have to sit back and negotiate when you have been attacked.

Japan would not have surrendered without the usage of atomics. If we hadn't of used said devices we would of had to invade the Japanese mainland, costing hundreds of thousands of lives more than what was lost in both of these cities combined. Suport of this theory is found with the events that unfolded around the invasion of Okinawa (A southern island of Japan) Thousands of American and Japanese soldiers lost, and the suicide of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians that were told by the Japanese military that the Americans would commit horrible atrocides against them. Most of them lept of one of the many cliff faces around the island.

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.

It was much much more than 'tens of thousands', I believe Hiroshima's official count lies above 250,000 (thats including deaths related to post-bomb effects upon survivors, and their children, and their children's children).
Yes Japan was politically dominated by a faction of hard right pro-war military warlords.
Yes standard bombing was as just as lethal, (Actually, not long before Hiroshima, tokyo was conventionally bombed resulting in a higher initial death toll than Hiroshima and nagasaki combined).
Yes Dresden is yet another war crime that the Allies would have been hung for had they lost the war.
The 3 reasons why Hiroshima and Nagasaki was such a terrible thing are:

1.Both targets were completely civilian, centred on the business and residential districts of both cities.
2.Japan was losing the war, and the US had many options at their disposal for a coup de gras. Instead, they chose the A-bomb for 1 reason alone: It had not yet been tested on a live population. The Bomb was initially intended for the Nazis, but when the bottom fell out of that, they threw it at the Japanese instead. It was nothing other than a shameless test.
3.Nuclear weapons are unique to all other WMD's in that the effects of that weapon will haunt the people savagely for the next few generations, then mildly for the next several billion years. In this respect, the US bombed generations of unborn japanese.

All for a test. I hear the research on the victims is going quite well. Amongst the atrocities commited by the Americans, I believe this to be the worst. It makes me sick. America makes me sick. This was too terrible. Babies were melted to their parents, people skin peeled of their bones whilst they screamed in agony. School children were cooked alive. Elderly citizens watched their whole families partially disintegrate, nursing their twisted, burnt, melting form to a charred grave. For those caught outside (Most of the population, as no air raid alarm was raised), you would see silhouettes of them blasted on to the wall, in playgrounds, outside temples, and on the street. Skinless victims lurched and gasped until they drowned in their own blood. A five year old girl with her arms fused to her face, whimpering on the ground as she slowly dies of radiation poisoning.

Yes war is bad. Yes innocents die. Yes conventional bombing were perpetrated by the allies on civilian targets several times. But this. This was a new low for humanity. 'Home of the cowardly, land of the free (no matter the expense to the human race)'. It was the attitude behind the Hiroshima bombing which would indicate that the US would rather destroy the world than lose the war. This is why I can't stand the fact that the US has so many hundreds of nukes under its control. If anyone has proven they can't handle the responsibility, its them.

To quote the bumper sticker phrase, no Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima may sound flippiant but it doesn't make it less true.
First of all, if that actually is a bumper sticker...that is just disgusting. Now in terms of logic, Japan was baited into war by the US. The US wanted in, and Japan was their door.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

Read it. The President even had prior knowledge of the attacks, but did not alert Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt wanted in on the war, and Congress was resolutely against it.

1.Both targets were completely civilian, centred on the business and residential districts of both cities.

did you read anything by NERVUN? We already established long ago that they were, indeed, Military Targets. No one disputes it.

2.Japan was losing the war, and the US had many options at their disposal for a coup de gras. Instead, they chose the A-bomb for 1 reason alone: It had not yet been tested on a live population. The Bomb was initially intended for the Nazis, but when the bottom fell out of that, they threw it at the Japanese instead. It was nothing other than a shameless test.

We continued to bomb them prior to the A-Bombs being used. We warned them that if they didn't surrender, we would unleash a terrible destructive power that has never been seen before. Not like we gave them enough warning to surrender.

3.Nuclear weapons are unique to all other WMD's in that the effects of that weapon will haunt the people savagely for the next few generations, then mildly for the next several billion years. In this respect, the US bombed generations of unborn japanese.

Well if Japan actually wanted to negotiate peacefully, we given them every opportunity even prior to December 7, 1941

First of all, if that actually is a bumper sticker...that is just disgusting. Now in terms of logic, Japan was baited into war by the US. The US wanted in, and Japan was their door.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

Read it. The President even had prior knowledge of the attacks, but did not alert Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt wanted in on the war, and Congress was resolutely against it.

Oh brother. OH my god. Revisionist History RUN AMUCK! There was a war warning issued to EVERY PACIFIC BASE! Every base had the war warning. NO ONE knew that Pearl was the target. Everyone, including the President, thought it would be in the Philippines.

As to baiting, we were negotiating upto we heard about Pearl Harbor. Learn real history facts my friend and stop with the conspiracy nonsense. I'm sick and tired of debunking every one of them on this site.

Why exactly do people speak negatively of the bomb being dropped on Japan?
Would you speak positively of it if your country was a-bombed even though it was already defeated? I think not.
The bombings were only to show off and kill as much civilians as possible. Also note that it was *atom* bombs, not "regular" bombs, so they had a huge fallout and all that, creating a huge amount of damage even many years after the bombings still.

Oh brother. OH my god. Revisionist History RUN AMUCK! There was a war warning issued to EVERY PACIFIC BASE! Every base had the war warning. NO ONE knew that Pearl was the target. Everyone, including the President, thought it would be in the Philippines.

As to baiting, we were negotiating upto we heard about Pearl Harbor. Learn real history facts my friend and stop with the conspiracy nonsense. I'm sick and tired of debunking every one of them on this site.

Admittedly, it is questionable. However, that does not mean we should disregard everything there. Ultimately it is beside the point(I just have a natural arguementative streak). The point is I don't have a logical arguement against the US use of the A-bomb. That's because there is none. Using the A-bomb was supremely logical. Now it is very rare that I will ever stray from the bounds of logic, but I truly must in this case. The only reason I can offer as to why I will repost:

All for a test. I hear the research on the victims is going quite well. Amongst the atrocities commited by the Americans, I believe this to be the worst. It makes me sick. America makes me sick. This was too terrible. Babies were melted to their parents, people skin peeled of their bones whilst they screamed in agony. School children were cooked alive. Elderly citizens watched their whole families partially disintegrate, nursing their twisted, burnt, melting form to a charred grave. For those caught outside (Most of the population, as no air raid alarm was raised), you would see silhouettes of them blasted on to the wall, in playgrounds, outside temples, and on the street. Skinless victims lurched and gasped until they drowned in their own blood. A five year old girl with her arms fused to her face, whimpering on the ground as she slowly dies of radiation poisoning.

Its an all time low for the human race. I hate the usual moralistic crap that usually comes from the people typical of this stance. But I have to say, this is the line. This is just...too much. This act alone is perhaps the foundation of my intense distaste for all things American. I cannot help but feel overwhelmed with disgust. The human race has done terrible things before. We have killed more innocents before. But I truly believe this was the worst atrocity ever committed by the human race. I cannot even begin to comprehend the abhorrence of this act. Unborn children live with the consequences of this decision. I feel sick inside considering this.

*snip*

It was either drop the bomb and kill a few hundred thousand or invade and kill millions. War comes down to numbers. That is a cold hard fact that we all have to deal with.

We gave the Japanese many opportunity to surrender. They did not surrender. If they had surrendered, we wouldn't have had to drop the bomb.

It was either drop the bomb and kill a few hundred thousand or invade and kill millions. War comes down to numbers. That is a cold hard fact that we all have to deal with.

We gave the Japanese many opportunity to surrender. They did not surrender. If they had surrendered, we wouldn't have had to drop the bomb.

Indeed. Truman wanted to be seen as an adequate successor to FDR and wanted to put up a big show to the Russians, especially Stalin. However, this was combined with the fact that the American Public wanted a quick end to the conflict, which neither a blockade or an extended invasion would have offered. The bomb was the quickest, most efficent weapon to use, and the only realistic choice.

However, it was morally wrong. Extremely wrong. Unfortunately, there was no other way.

Indeed. Truman wanted to be seen as an adequate successor to FDR and wanted to put up a big show to the Russians, especially Stalin. However, this was combined with the fact that the American Public wanted a quick end to the conflict, which neither a blockade or an extended invasion would have offered. The bomb was the quickest, most efficent weapon to use, and the only realistic choice.

However, it was morally wrong. Extremely wrong. Unfortunately, there was no other way.

As I said, it all comes down to numbers. The cold hard numbers.

http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/

http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/

We hardly need those pictures to remind us it was a moral atrocity. Nice try to use emotions to foil an otherwise competant argument. It was a godawful thing to do, but the only thing Truman could realistically do, considering the political and social ramifications and pressures placed on him.

http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/

I see you would rather dodge my question than outright answer it so I'll ask you again.

If you had a choice, which number would you accept, a couple hundred thousand in 2 bombs or 5 MILLION in an invasion? Which one would you pick?

It was either drop the bomb and kill a few hundred thousand or invade and kill millions. War comes down to numbers. That is a cold hard fact that we all have to deal with.

We gave the Japanese many opportunity to surrender. They did not surrender. If they had surrendered, we wouldn't have had to drop the bomb.
Thats just not an excuse. Win conventionally. It wouldn't have been have hard. Storm Tokyo, whatever.

Thats just not an excuse. Win conventionally. It wouldn't have been have hard. Storm Tokyo, whatever.

And kill MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS? Oh brother. Talk about immorality. That would be worse than bombing them with the 2 bombs we did.

So you would actually kill millions of people instead of ending a war in days. I see!

Thats just not an excuse. Win conventionally. It wouldn't have been have hard. Storm Tokyo, whatever.

Do you have any idea of the human cost that would have entailed? Forget 250,000 and think 2-3 Million. The JCOS put the US casuaties at a minimum of 75,000 in Olympic with seasoned European Theatre Troops, and a maximum of 500,000 if using Pacific-trained troops, alongside another 50-75,000 casuatis from US Navy and Airforce casualties, and it goes up even more. Then add to this around a milion Japanese casualties from their armed forces, including kamikazes and banzai attacks, and then perhaps the same plus for civilian casualties from urban fighting, bombing and attacks made on US soldiers by some armed Japanese Civilians.

The A-Bomb caused far less casualties than an invasion would have, and it didn't destroy an entire nations economy and infrastructure as an invasion would have. The A-Bomb was terrible, but nthing compared to an invasion in human cost.

We hardly need those pictures to remind us it was a moral atrocity. Nice try to use emotions to foil an otherwise competant argument. It was a godawful thing to do, but the only thing Truman could realistically do, considering the political and social ramifications and pressures placed on him.
I'm not argueing. It was supremely logical. Instant win. Test on a live population. Scare future enemies. Very logical. Too terrible. Some things just should not be an option. Truman could have won without the A-bomb, he practically had. Many more would have died (In the short term, but that should even out over the course of the next 4.5 billion years) had he not dropped the bomb, but at least they would have been soldiers. If you go to war, you deserve to death if it comes your way. But innocents never asked for death. Their children didn't ask for it. Their grand children didn't ask for it.

And kill MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS? Oh brother. Talk about immorality. That would be worse than bombing them with the 2 bombs we did.

So you would actually kill millions of people instead of ending a war in days. I see!
Where do you draw this figure from? Germany was conquered conventionally without millions of civilian casualties. The population there was just as brainwashed as in Japan. It all comes down to crippling, strategic attack. At that stage of the war, it would have been easy. You don't seem to be taking the issue seriously (with your facicious tone).

I'm not argueing. It was supremely logical. Instant win. Test on a live population. Scare future enemies. Very logical. Too terrible. Some things just should not be an option. Truman could have won without the A-bomb, he practically had. Many more would have died (In the short term, but that should even out over the course of the next 4.5 billion years) had he not dropped the bomb, but at least they would have been soldiers. If you go to war, you deserve to death if it comes your way. But innocents never asked for death. Their children didn't ask for it. Their grand children didn't ask for it.

I agree, it was a terrible option that he had at his fingertips, and one that in a perfect world he should never have had to use. But he did. It was an easy way to end the conflict without causing millions of Japanese and US deaths - both military and civilian - and finally end World War Two. I doubt he knew the whole effect of the bomb and what it would do in the long-term - and even if he did, it was an easier decision to make than an unopular and costly invasion.

You also keep saying that only soldiers would have died. They would have, but millions of civilians as well. Not just those caufht up in the bombings and fighting around them, but also those who were trained to fight US soldiers, using sticks and spears. They might have been a minority, but they would have fought to the end. Realise that.

I'm not argueing. It was supremely logical. Instant win. Test on a live population. Scare future enemies. Very logical. Too terrible. Some things just should not be an option. Truman could have won without the A-bomb, he practically had. Many more would have died (In the short term, but that should even out over the course of the next 4.5 billion years) had he not dropped the bomb, but at least they would have been soldiers. If you go to war, you deserve to death if it comes your way. But innocents never asked for death. Their children didn't ask for it. Their grand children didn't ask for it.

Well how many generations do you think would've been affected if we had to invade. I already met a few people on here who probably wouldn't be around if their Grandfathers had to land on a Tokyo Beach.

There are far more reaching consequences if we had to invade and they are not worth thinking on. Go back and read what NERVUN had to write about this. You might be surprised.

Where do you draw this figure from? Germany was conquered conventionally without millions of civilian casualties. The population there was just as brainwashed as in Japan. It all comes down to crippling, strategic attack. At that stage of the war, it would have been easy. You don't seem to be taking the issue seriously (with your facicious tone).

You don't seem to understand the Japanese society; I recommend re-reading NERVUNs excellent posts. The culture was vastly different to that of Germany. The Japanese served the Emperor, and had there been an invasion they would have fought for him and obeyed his orders to continue fighting, only stopping when he ordered them to. This, combined with hugely wasteful attacks such as Kamikaze and Banzai attacks would have led to an enormous loss of Japanese military and civilian life in an invasion.

Where do you draw this figure from? Germany was conquered conventionally without millions of civilian casualties. The population there was just as brainwashed as in Japan. It all comes down to crippling, strategic attack. At that stage of the war, it would have been easy. You don't seem to be taking the issue seriously (with your facicious tone).

Japan was more brainwashed than Germany was. Japan would not have surrendered as easily as Germany did. Also, Germany held out as long as they did so that they could evacuate alot of people to the west.

With japan, they didn't surrender. They fought to the death. Also, you have to look at the operational plans. Did you know that the plans called for the use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS? Yes that's right! Chemical Weapons. Care to tell me what chemical weapons do on unprotected people? *shudders* Not to mention, they were thinking about using Nukes to clear the beaches for the US Invasion. *shudders at the thought*

Also, civilians were training with bamboo spears. No one knows how many would've actually fought but suffice to say that many would. That is if they survived the first bombing raids and shore bombardments leading up to the Invasion of the islands.

I shudder to think why anyone wants to see millions of civilians die in an invasion as well as Hundreds of thousands of Allied lives in said invasion.

I agree, it was a terrible option that he had at his fingertips, and one that in a perfect world he should never have had to use. But he did. It was an easy way to end the conflict without causing millions of Japanese and US deaths - both military and civilian - and finally end World War Two. I doubt he knew the whole effect of the bomb and what it would do in the long-term - and even if he did, it was an easier decision to make than an unopular and costly invasion.

You also keep saying that only soldiers would have died. They would have, but millions of civilians as well. Not just those caufht up in the bombings and fighting around them, but also those who were trained to fight US soldiers, using sticks and spears. They might have been a minority, but they would have fought to the end. Realise that.
You keep throwing this random number around 'millions'. This is unsubstantiated, and not at all neccesary. Even with the US Army's penchant for murdering innocents, they would not have had to kill that many civillians. All they would have to do would be to take Tokyo. In Japan's state that wouldn't have been hard. They were on their last legs. No way would a conventional victory have cost more than Hiroshima, seeing as the costs on hiroshima will go on for the next several billion years. Truman condemned countless generations of unborn humans for his cheap, easy, and flashy victory.

Well how many generations do you think would've been affected if we had to invade. I already met a few people on here who probably wouldn't be around if their Grandfathers had to land on a Tokyo Beach.
Several billion years worth? Don't even begin to pretend that the Americans have ever been the victim, (in any situation, ever). If their Grandfathers were going to die on the beaches of Tokyo, then it would have been their own stupid fault for going to war (conscription or not).
There are far more reaching consequences if we had to invade and they are not worth thinking on. Go back and read what NERVUN had to write about this. You might be surprised.
Why don't you stop telling me about NERVUN and form the opinion yourself? Afraid?

You keep throwing this random number around 'millions'. This is unsubstantiated, and not at all neccesary.

1) It isn't unsubstantiated as these were the numbers that the military came up with when they were doing their pre-invasion planning. That makes it relevent to the whole discussion. I am utterly surprised that you have such a lack of history in this matter.

Even with the US Army's penchant for murdering innocents,

I take offense to this. I had a cousin in the Army and they do not make it a habit of killing innocent people on purpose. Get over your damn prejudice if you want to have this debate continue.

they would not have had to kill that many civillians.

Wanna bet? They were preparing themselves for the prospect of killing women and children.

All they would have to do would be to take Tokyo. In Japan's state that wouldn't have been hard.

Now I know your an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about. You say it would be easy. Everyone agrees that it would've been a blood bath. I'll take the historians over you any day of the week.

They were on their last legs. No way would a conventional victory have cost more than Hiroshima, seeing as the costs on hiroshima will go on for the next several billion years. Truman condemned countless generations of unborn humans for his cheap, easy, and flashy victory.

HAhAHAHAHA!! Go back and read history pacifistic. You really need to bone up on it. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about and it is quite obvious.

You keep throwing this random number around 'millions'. This is unsubstantiated, and not at all neccesary. Even with the US Army's penchant for murdering innocents, they would not have had to kill that many civillians. All they would have to do would be to take Tokyo. In Japan's state that wouldn't have been hard. They were on their last legs. No way would a conventional victory have cost more than Hiroshima, seeing as the costs on hiroshima will go on for the next several billion years. Truman condemned countless generations of unborn humans for his cheap, easy, and flashy victory.

Your bias against the US military is starting to show; you're not even attempting to hide it. You seem unable to grasp historical realities here, as well as the actual nature of Japanese culture. The US military would not have just had to take Tokyo. First, they would have to had fought their way there - even using airbourne troops this would have taken some tie against fanatical resistance from the Japanese troops there. Once at Tokyo, it would have ben taen block by block, something that the battle for Berlin only a few months prior would have shown extremely difficult against fanatical defenders - and the US troops woud have had no overwhelming numerical advantage

Even taking Tokyo would have meant nothing. The Emperor may well have gone elsewhere to continue a struggle that had destroyed his hopes for peace; as long as he lived, resistance would have continued. I do not make the number of milions up; given the civilian population of Japan, those trained to fight against the invaders, those who would have commited suicide and the overwhelming majority killed during the fighting, the numbers would have reached more than a million.

Perhaops if your biases were not so apparent, you could realise this. Again, I greatly urge you to read NERVUNs posts earlier on in the thread.

Several billion years worth? Don't even begin to pretend that the Americans have ever been the victim, (in any situation, ever). If their Grandfathers were going to die on the beaches of Tokyo, then it would have been their own stupid fault for going to war (conscription or not).

*sighs* I see there really is no use in arguing with you is there? WE WERE ATTACKED AND WE WERE DEFENDING OURSELVES. IS THAT CLEAR?

Why don't you stop telling me about NERVUN and form the opinion yourself? Afraid?

He knows far more about the Japanese Culture of the time period than I do and HE LIVES THERE!!!

Japan was more brainwashed than Germany was. Japan would not have surrendered as easily as Germany did. Also, Germany held out as long as they did so that they could evacuate alot of people to the west.

With japan, they didn't surrender. They fought to the death. Also, you have to look at the operational plans. Did you know that the plans called for the use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS? Yes that's right! Chemical Weapons. Care to tell me what chemical weapons do on unprotected people? *shudders* Not to mention, they were thinking about using Nukes to clear the beaches for the US Invasion. *shudders at the thought*

Also, civilians were training with bamboo spears. No one knows how many would've actually fought but suffice to say that many would. That is if they survived the first bombing raids and shore bombardments leading up to the Invasion of the islands.

I shudder to think why anyone wants to see millions of civilians die in an invasion as well as Hundreds of thousands of Allied lives in said invasion.
All of that was meaningless speculation. A hopeless attempt to justify the most atrocious War crime ever comitted.

All of that was meaningless speculation. A hopeless attempt to justify the most atrocious War crime ever comitted.

Look, read this link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10675892&postcount=24

It should tell you all you need to know about the cultute back then. Oh, and don't go on about War Crimes. The A-Bomb may well have been one, but the Japanese are hardly innocent; the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March were Japanese War Crimes as well; they were hardly innocent.

All of that was meaningless speculation. A hopeless attempt to justify the most atrocious War crime ever comitted.

OH FOR THE LORD'S SAKE!!

This is not speculation GPN. These are the cold hard facts that every historian that I can think of, agree with. If you do not want to believe the fact that millions would've died in an invasion, that isn't my problem.

I know you are bias against my nation's military. It is quite evident that this prejudice means that we are responsible for everything. Listen to me buddy, we did not want to get involved in World War II. We were happy to stay out of it. Then Japan comes along, kicks us in the teeth and takes over the entire Pacific Ocean. What do you think we were going to do? Lay down and die? No! We fought back and it was luck with what happend at Midway. There, the war changed but yet the Japanese didn't surrender an inch. We literally fought island by island and drove them back to Iwo Jima and Okinawa. There own citizens were killing themselves because of the propaganda that their own side was spewing.

What I have on my side is historical facts. Not the fantasy you obviously believe in. I have the cold hard numbers straight from the military and the historians who actually back up those numbers. An Invasion would've cost the Japanese far more in the way of lives and completely decimate their way of life.

I'm sorry that you don't have the balls to actually study up on this matter If ya did, you would see clearly that the Bomb was the only practicle choice we could've made.

It was probably necessary, since if it hadn't happened they might never have made "Akira".

1) It isn't unsubstantiated as these were the numbers that the military came up with when they were doing their pre-invasion planning. That makes it relevent to the whole discussion. I am utterly surprised that you have such a lack of history in this matter.
The same military that wanted to use the bomb, right? No bias there.


I take offense to this. I had a cousin in the Army and they do not make it a habit of killing innocent people on purpose. Get over your damn prejudice if you want to have this debate continue.
So take offense. It's true. Everywhere the US military goes, atrocities and pointless murdering of civilians follow. It's not every army in the world either. Let's jog your memory; Mexico, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, Haiti, (Several other South american nations), Somalia, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and recently Iraq.


Wanna bet? They were preparing themselves for the prospect of killing women and children.
I bet they were. Prepare away, but don't get too excited, maybe they won't fight back...


Now I know your an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about. You say it would be easy. Everyone agrees that it would've been a blood bath. I'll take the historians over you any day of the week. Ad Populum/Appeal to Authority/Ad Hominem. Hat trick, well done. Arguementative fallacies only serve to weaken your own arguement.



HAhAHAHAHA!! Go back and read history pacifistic. You really need to bone up on it. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about and it is quite obvious.Are you a child? This really isn't the kind of topic to be laughing on. It would seem that you are simply trying to 'win'. Foolish, seeing as I resigned very early on. This is nothing other than immaturity. I believe that the seperating factor between us wasn't who read the history, so much as who analysed and understood the lessons it held. After all, you would hardly learn history to win arguements, would you?

Look, read this link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10675892&postcount=24

It should tell you all you need to know about the cultute back then. Oh, and don't go on about War Crimes. The A-Bomb may well have been one, but the Japanese are hardly innocent; the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March were Japanese War Crimes as well; they were hardly innocent.
Definitely true. As far as war crimes go, I would place Japan as #3, right after the US#1 and the third reich#2. Don't confuse condemnation of American war crimes for defence of those of their adversaries.

The same military that wanted to use the bomb, right? No bias there.

Ignore History.

I bet they were. Prepare away, but don't get too excited, maybe they won't fight back...

If you actually believe this about japan then you are sadly mistaken.

Ad Populum/Appeal to Authority/Ad Hominem. Hat trick, well done. Arguementative fallacies only serve to weaken your own arguement.

Excuse me but this is actually historical fact. Once again, you seem to want to ignore the historical record. I'm not surprised considering your prejudices. Its interfering with facts.

Are you a child?

A keen student of History with an emphasis in World War II actually.

This really isn't the kind of topic to be laughing on. It would seem that you are simply trying to 'win'. Foolish, seeing as I resigned very early on. This is nothing other than immaturity. I believe that the seperating factor between us wasn't who read the history, so much as who analysed and understood the lessons it held. After all, you would hardly learn history to win arguements, would you?

Because of your preconceived notions and your failure to actually look at the culture of why the bombed was dropped makes you ignorant of World War II. Unlike you, I have studied World War II: Pacific in depth. I have books on it here in my dorm room. The Japanese didn't surrender and they didn't retreat.

Always nuke the coloreds (non-whites) was the motto for the army of the United States. McArthur also wanted the US to nuke China several times during the Korean war. Guess why they never hesitated on bombing Japan and yet spared Europe. Besides, that was the reason why so many nations want to acquire nuclear weapons because they know America cannot be trusted (they like to use the stick more often than the carrot). I mean, what good will come out of only few countries (mostly white nations) having nuclear weapons? They just want to keep the status quo, but that wont happen.

Definitely true. As far as war crimes go, I would place Japan as #3, right after the US#1 and the third reich#2. Don't confuse condemnation of American war crimes for defence of those of their adversaries.

Oh brother. Now I know you know next to nothing of history.

Always nuke the coloreds (non-whites) was the motto for the army of the United States. McArthur also wanted the US to nuke China several times during the Korean war. Guess why they never hesitated on bombing Japan and yet spared Europe. Besides, that was the reason why so many nations want to acquire nuclear weapons because they know America cannot be trusted (they like to use the stick more often than the carrot). I mean, what good will come out of only few countries (mostly white nations) having nuclear weapons? They just want to keep the status quo, but that wont happen.

And this post just makes you look extremely ignorant.

OH FOR THE LORD'S SAKE!!

This is not speculation GPN. These are the cold hard facts that every historian that I can think of, agree with. If you do not want to believe the fact that millions would've died in an invasion, that isn't my problem.

I know you are bias against my nation's military. It is quite evident that this prejudice means that we are responsible for everything. Listen to me buddy, we did not want to get involved in World War II. We were happy to stay out of it. Then Japan comes along, kicks us in the teeth and takes over the entire Pacific Ocean. What do you think we were going to do? Lay down and die? No! We fought back and it was luck with what happend at Midway. There, the war changed but yet the Japanese didn't surrender an inch. We literally fought island by island and drove them back to Iwo Jima and Okinawa. There own citizens were killing themselves because of the propaganda that their own side was spewing.

What I have on my side is historical facts. Not the fantasy you obviously believe in. I have the cold hard numbers straight from the military and the historians who actually back up those numbers. An Invasion would've cost the Japanese far more in the way of lives and completely decimate their way of life.

I'm sorry that you don't have the balls to actually study up on this matter If ya did, you would see clearly that the Bomb was the only practicle choice we could've made.

I've studied history. Perhaps you have and perhaps you haven't. It seems that you are reading grade10 textbook history, due mainly to the generalisations you make. One thing I know is that historians are hardly unanimous on the A-Bomb. Maybe they are under the American syllabus (Wouldn't surprise me). Who are all of these historians that agree with you. Being so well read, I'm sure you could fire off a few top historians who specialise on WW2. Again I assert that there is no way that a conventional vitory in Japan would have exceeded the cost of human life than 2 nuclear attacks with radioactive fallout bearing a half-life of approx. 4.5 Billion years. The only reason you have given so far that millions of civilians would have died is "NERVUN said so" " All of the historians agree" and "The military suspected it in their battle plans". Nothing conclusive. I read NERVUN's post. He even admits that it would be hard to know for sure. Even if his assessment was entirely correct, the US govt. did not have that level of retrospecive analysis and comprehension of Japanese culture, and so clearly could not have made decisions from the information. Skinny87 hit the nail on the head earlier, when he straight out said that it was the more cost effective, publicly popular, and intimidating (for stalin) way to end the war.

I remember an almost identical thread about this a few weeks ago.

I don't regard the bombings as a war crime, especially not in the context of the overall conflict (i.e. total war) and they pale in comparison to the sadism and cruelty of, say, Unit 731 or the Rape of Nanking.

However, although I think the right decision was ultimately made, I don't think it was as inevitable and justified as some people claim.

The use of atomic weapons was an awesome responsibility and the suffering inflicted upon the populations of the two target cities was horrific. There was plenty of disagreement within US military ranks about whether the atomic bombing had been the right strategy and there are conflicting accounts of how forthcoming a Japanese surrender might have been, particularly between the first and second attack. The two cities, though definitely strategically important in a military sense, cannot, I believe, be merely defined as military targets without doing at least some disservice to the huge civilian populations that were destroyed in each.

I also think there was a slightly-less-than-admirable combination of cold scientific interest (i.e the willingness to test one bomb of each type) and simple hard-headed revenge, amongst many other things, in the US decision. Japan started the war and America wanted to end it with comparable 'statement' to the surprise attack in 1941. Then again, the American resolve to defeat the enemy and make terrific sacrifice overshadowed all others in the Pacific theatre in particular; I don't think they should be judged too harshly for the act that ended the 'Hell'.

To be honest I can't think of a more suitable ending to the greatest conflict of our time (and hopefully all time) than the use of a weapon so terrible that it makes a future war of similar scale only acceptable in the minds of maniacs.

*snip*

And maybe your just prejudice that you can't figure out which end is up when it comes to reading a highly complex plan of battle. I read the operational details for Olympic and Coronet. I read what they were estimating their casualties to be The numbers are astounding.

Unlike you, I have studied every aspect of the Pacific War from both sides of the conflict. The way the fight makes me glad we did not have to fight them on their own soil.

Go back and actually read up on Operations Olympic and Coronet. You might be surprised at just how many casualties they were predicting. The numbers are not pretty.

Ignore History.
:confused:


If you actually believe this about japan then you are sadly mistaken. Oh, ok. Whoops.:rolleyes: Let me guess, arguementative essays aren't your high point?



Excuse me but this is actually historical fact. Once again, you seem to want to ignore the historical record. I'm not surprised considering your prejudices. Its interfering with facts.
The historical record? Let us take a look:
Now I know your an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about. You say it would be easy. Everyone agrees that it would've been a blood bath. I'll take the historians over you any day of the week.
Ad Populum/Appeal to Authority/Ad Hominem. Hat trick, well done. Arguementative fallacies only serve to weaken your own arguement.
So; I am an idiot who has no idea what I'm talking about, Everyone agrees that it would be a blood bath, and the *unamed*historians opinion counting over mine are historical fact? Make your responses relevant, or don't make them.


A keen student of History with an emphasis in World War II actually. That was a rhetorical question, making an inference to your childlike trolling behaviour (Specifically, laughing like a madman whist discussing such a sensitive topic as the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It does not require a answer, though recognition is fine.



Because of your preconceived notions and your failure to actually look at the culture of why the bombed was dropped makes you ignorant of World War II. Unlike you, I have studied World War II: Pacific in depth. I have books on it here in my dorm room. The Japanese didn't surrender and they didn't retreat.This is not a relevant response to criticisms of immaturity/ demands for a more mature approach to the current discourse. For someone who is so knowledgable on the war in the pacific (So knowledgable, in fact, you know who has and hasn't studied it) it is odd to hear such a sweeping generalisation as the Japanese didn't surrender, and the Japanese didn't retreat. Being the devotee to history that you are, you would be aware that during the latter half of WW2 the civil branch of the Japanese government was pleading with the Emperor to end the War. Somewhat uncharacteristic of 'the Japanese', don't you think?

Oh brother. Now I know you know next to nothing of history.
Ad hominem.

And this post just makes you look extremely ignorant.
Ad hominem

Ad hominem.

No it aint since it is true. What you are spouting is nothing more than revisionism. I hate revisionism when it comes to history.

And maybe your just prejudice that you can't figure out which end is up when it comes to reading a highly complex plan of battle. I read the operational details for Olympic and Coronet. I read what they were estimating their casualties to be The numbers are astounding.

Unlike you, I have studied every aspect of the Pacific War from both sides of the conflict. The way the fight makes me glad we did not have to fight them on their own soil.

Go back and actually read up on Operations Olympic and Coronet. You might be surprised at just how many casualties they were predicting. The numbers are not pretty.
Again with the Ad hominem. You seem to be missing this one, so I shall put it in bold. Several billion years of radioactive fallout.

Again with the Ad hominem. You seem to be missing this one, so I shall put it in bold. Several billion years of radioactive fallout.

Not with the type of bombs that were used in 1945. Today you would be right. Back then, you are most highly incorrect.

No it aint since it is true. What you are spouting is nothing more than revisionism. I hate revisionism when it comes to history.
Which Ad hominem are you quoting? You have made several in your last few posts. If you don't like my 'revisionism', then you should say that. Criticising me for being poorly read, ignorant, or stupid does not clearly communicate this point, and makes you look desperate.

Which Ad hominem are you quoting? You have made several in your last few posts. If you don't like my 'revisionism', then you should say that. Criticising me for being poorly read, ignorant, or stupid does not clearly communicate this point, and makes you look desperate.

I already told you to cut it with revisionism. You didn't.

Not with the type of bombs that were used in 1945. Today you would be right. Back then, you are most highly incorrect.
You're right! Uranium-235 only has a half-life of 713 Million years. My mistake. Interesting lesson on uranium, however, somewhat irrelevant.

I already told you to cut it with revisionism. You didn't.Still not an excuse for ad hominem, especially when revisionism is a perfectly valid historical approach. Especially valid in the circumstances of post-war history written by the victor.

You're right! Uranium-235 only has a half-life of 713 Million years. My mistake. Interesting lesson on uranium, however, somewhat irrelevant.

Actually, it is very relevent to what you were saying :rolleyes:

Still not an excuse for ad hominem, especially when revisionism is a perfectly valid historical approach. Especially valid in the circumstances of post-war history written by the victor.

Revisionism is never a perfectly valid historical approach. I never approach things from a revisionist stance. I consider revisionism to be an afront to those of us who want to be or who are historians.

Actually, it is very relevent to what you were saying :rolleyes: Let us take a look. I was erroneously stating several billion years as the half life for Uranium235 with the focus being that several billion years is an inconceivably long time to poison the residents of the Hiroshima area. The true figure is one about on fifth of this figure, at 713million. 713million years is still an inconceivably long time, so my arguement still stands. In the terms of the context to which it was raised, the change of figure is irrelevant. Scientifically, it is very relevant, but we aren't discussing science, are we?

Let us take a look. I was erroneously stating several billion years as the half life for Uranium235 with the focus being that several billion years is an inconceivably long time to poison the residents of the Hiroshima area. The true figure is one about on fifth of this figure, at 713million. 713million years is still an inconceivably long time, so my arguement still stands. In the terms of the context to which it was raised, the change of figure is irrelevant. Scientifically, it is very relevant, but we aren't discussing science, are we?

No it don't stand. Not for the type of explosion that occured. Compared to the bombs we have today, those are fire crackers. The bombs at hiroshima and Nagasaki were small bombs. They didn't have the explosive power of the later bombs. SO no, your point does not stand.

*goes to put clothes in the dryer*

Revisionism is never a perfectly valid historical approach. I never approach things from a revisionist stance. I consider revisionism to be an afront to those of us who want to be or who are historians.

In many places, Revisionism can be extremely useful, especially in the modern age. Appeasement is a prime example. Without revisionist historians, we would still hold the biased and unfair view of Churchill and Cato that Chamberlain was a foolish and weak man who should never have negotiated. Only through revisionism can we see his true motives and intense desire to have peace at any cost to avoid war, as well as his support of Churchill after war became inevitable. Revisionism is also neccessafry in subjects such as the Industrial Revolution, to disprove the idea of the 'Long 18th Century' and of technology being vital to the Industrial Revolution - and indeed if the label 'Revolution' is actually true.

Revisionism in areas such as the Holocuast is unneccessary and idiotic, and the same for ancient histry like the Crusades. But in many areas t is vital - as long as it is supported by facts, like all other history.

Revisionism is never a perfectly valid historical approach. I never approach things from a revisionist stance. I consider revisionism to be an afront to those of us who want to be or who are historians.
Revisionism is having the backbone and independence of thought to critically review, and analyse historical dogma. You are right to be against revisionism, as it will surely be the thing to expose your historical work as biased and untrustworth should it ever become convention (doubtful).

*snip*
Revisionism in areas such as the Holocuast is unneccessary and idiotic, and the same for ancient histry like the Crusades. But in many areas t is vital - as long as it is supported by facts, like all other history.
Kudos for the first half, however, I would like to pick at your final points. Revisionism in areas such as the holocaust is unpopular, through has a right to exist if it can (all revision should be allowed), for if the holocaust is true, then the revisionists will prove themselves wrong(unless they have some kind of motivation, like anti-semitism, in which case their credibility goes out the window with their theories). I also feel ancient history should be subject to revisionism if need be, (as ancient history, like all history, is studied to bring us truth and perspective). It is, however, uncommon that new specific evidence arises to contradict the already hazy ancient history, so revisionism is largely unneccesary.

IF THE HOLOCAUST IS TRUE? Dude, My university is having its annual holocaust conference now. It sure as hell was real.

No it don't stand. Not for the type of explosion that occured. Compared to the bombs we have today, those are fire crackers. The bombs at hiroshima and Nagasaki were small bombs. They didn't have the explosive power of the later bombs. SO no, your point does not stand.

*goes to put clothes in the dryer*
*whoosh* Irrespective of the size of the blast, the radiation will be around for an inconcievably long time (more than 713 million years, actually). So my point does stand...do you get it? It wouldn't matter if the half-life was 200billion years, or 1million, it is an inconcievably long time.

Kudos for the first half, however, I would like to pick at your final points. Revisionism in areas such as the holocaust is unpopular, through has a right to exist if it can (all revision should be allowed), for if the holocaust is true, then the revisionists will prove themselves wrong(unless they have some kind of motivation, like anti-semitism, in which case their credibility goes out the window with their theories). I also feel ancient history should be subject to revisionism if need be, (as ancient history, like all history, is studied to bring us truth and perspective). It is, however, uncommon that new specific evidence arises to contradict the already hazy ancient history, so revisionism is largely unneccesary.

For the Holocaust, all revisionist history annoys me really, because the sheer amount of evidence seems to me to show that revisionism should be pointless; but I digress, as I don't want to start another Holocaust thread and drag in the neo-nazis. As to ancient history, I often fail to see the point, as there is so little primary evidence in areas like the Crusades that revisionism has no point - not enough to go on and make another point. I did a module on the Crusades last year, and found the revisionist historian that kept popping up in reading lists annoying, as his assertations were founded on little evidence.

*whoosh* Irrespective of the size of the blast, the radiation will be around for an inconcievably long time (more than 713 million years, actually). So my point does stand...do you get it? It wouldn't matter if the half-life was 200billion years, or 1million, it is an inconcievably long time.

Apparently your not the one getting it. That's ok. I'm sure its tough to justify what your saying in your mind because of all the historical data against you.

IF THE HOLOCAUST IS TRUE? Dude, My university is having its annual holocaust conference now. It sure as hell was real.
Oh yes, I think so too. However, people should be allowed to object if they think they have an arguement (or even if they just want to).

Apparently your not the one getting it. That's ok. I'm sure its tough to justify what your saying in your mind because of all the historical data against you.
Nope, its you. An inconceivably long time is how long it takes for Uranium 235 to reach half-life. Be it 1 million, 713 million, 4 billion, or 700 billion. Irrelevant in the terms of the point that was made. Appeal to ignorance-I'm still yet too see any historical data which proves the future wrong.

Nope, its you. An inconceivably long time is how long it takes for Uranium 235 to reach half-life. Be it 1 million, 713 million, 4 billion, or 700 billion. Irrelevant in the terms of the point that was made. Appeal to ignorance-I'm still yet too see any historical data which proves the future wrong.

We aren't arguing the future. We're arguing the past :D

We aren't arguing the future. We're arguing the past :D
and my arguement lies in the future. There is no way a conventional defeat of Japan could excced the horror and death of over 713million years of radioactive fallout.

and my arguement lies in the future. There is no way a conventional defeat of Japan could excced the horror and death of over 713million years of radioactive fallout.

Just the total decimation of the entire Japanese Culture. That is actually far worse.

Just the total decimation of the entire Japanese Culture. That is actually far worse.
The Japanese culture wouldn't have been decimated. Even if it had, hundreds of millions of years of radioactive fallout will be killing people in Japan long after Japan doesn't even exist. Definitely not worse.

The Japanese culture wouldn't have been decimated. Even if it had, hundreds of millions of years of radioactive fallout will be killing people in Japan long after Japan doesn't even exist. Definitely not worse.

Apparently you haven't listened to word we were saying about what the invasion of Japan was going to be like. You think we were going to be lenient after Japan was conquered? No telling how long that was going to take.

Go out drinking, come back to idiocy.

1.Both targets were completely civilian, centred on the business and residential districts of both cities.
Buuu! Wong, the target at Hiroshima was next to a military training ground. It was actually a T shaped bridge that was visable from the air (They missed). Nagasaki's target was an industrial complex (They missed that too). Finally, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, JAPANESE CITIES ARE MIXED! There is NO such animal as a business or residential district in Japan. Things are built where there is land and there is NO such thing as zoning. Or to put it this way, my fiancee's house stands next to a quarry, a hospital, a casino (Pachinko), a train station, and a large(ish) rice field. This is NORMAL. My house is next to an apple orchard, an electronics store and a large shipping depot and machine shop (and this is a town of 15,000).

The children of Hiroshima were out clearing firebreaks around factories and other military facilities by tearing down houses around them that day. So, no, they were not targeted at residental districts only.

Jesh.

2.Japan was losing the war, and the US had many options at their disposal for a coup de gras. Instead, they chose the A-bomb for 1 reason alone: It had not yet been tested on a live population. The Bomb was initially intended for the Nazis, but when the bottom fell out of that, they threw it at the Japanese instead. It was nothing other than a shameless test.
Buuu, wrong. It was not a shameless test. For one thing, they had no idea about the effects of the radiation. Or how much destruction it would cause either.

All for a test. I hear the research on the victims is going quite well. Amongst the atrocities commited by the Americans, I believe this to be the worst. It makes me sick. America makes me sick. This was too terrible. Babies were melted to their parents, people skin peeled of their bones whilst they screamed in agony. School children were cooked alive. Elderly citizens watched their whole families partially disintegrate, nursing their twisted, burnt, melting form to a charred grave. For those caught outside (Most of the population, as no air raid alarm was raised), you would see silhouettes of them blasted on to the wall, in playgrounds, outside temples, and on the street. Skinless victims lurched and gasped until they drowned in their own blood. A five year old girl with her arms fused to her face, whimpering on the ground as she slowly dies of radiation poisoning.
Oh believe me, I know. And I have more reason than you to know.

Nothing conclusive. I read NERVUN's post. He even admits that it would be hard to know for sure.
You mis-represent my post. I said that saying the whole of the population would have risen up is unrealistic. To assume that many would is acceptable. To speculate that it would have been enough to make the Allied forces paranoid to the point where they may have just started shooting is something I am willing to accept. Observe this, when the allied forces arived in a defeated and surrendered Japan, the first 6 months were spent with jittery troops who, after fighting them for so long, were convinced that the Japanese would kill them all in their sleep. The Japanese were convinced that the Allies would be raping the women, most were sent to the mountains. How many would actually fight is hard to say, yes, but to state that an invasion would have killed far more Japanese than Hiroshima and Nagasaki did is a sound bet. Or do you really think that the Allied forces would have stopped bombing, and fire bombing at that, before invading?

Also, with the blockade, people were dying by the hundreds if not thousands a day due to hunger.

Now in terms of logic, Japan was baited into war by the US. The US wanted in, and Japan was their door.
Oh yes, somehow the United States infiltrated the Kwangtang Army and MADE them attack China. Somehow the US FORCED the Japanese High Command to commit troops to invading Indochina. And then FDR used his telepathic powers to force the Emperor Showa to give the go ahead for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Tell me, you're a tour guide at Yasukuni Jinja, right? They use the same twisted logic and proof that poor Japan was forced into the war.

You seem to be missing this one, so I shall put it in bold. Several billion years of radioactive fallout.
This would come to news to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both thriving (and rather large) cities right now. The background radiation at both is, currently 1%-3% higher than normal and well within the safe levels. For families of the survivors (People who moved there afterwards have no such issues), there is a higher than normal rate of birth defects, but this has dropped off sharply within the last few generations and the rates are about 5% more likely. I won't say Hiroshima is beautiful now (Because Japanese cities are just ugly) but it IS alive, very, very alive.

BTW, the foremost center for studying and treating damage from radiation is in Hiroshima and is funded jointly by both Japan and the United States, it provides the bulk of the care for the survivors, for free, and their children.

Even taking Tokyo would have meant nothing. The Emperor may well have gone elsewhere
He would have come to Nagano, where caves deep in the mountains had been prepared for him and the High Command. It would have taken years to get him out should he have decided to fight to the end.

Definitely true. As far as war crimes go, I would place Japan as #3, right after the US#1 and the third reich#2. Don't confuse condemnation of American war crimes for defence of those of their adversaries.

Hmmm..

Now I have been following your posts for some time and I would like to challenge your rating system. So you place the US in war crimes as #1, Nazi Germany #2 and Japan #3.

So is that based purely on nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki as opposed to the millions murdered by #2 and #3 based upon racial inferiority which is what Nazism and Japanese fascism espoused? Or are you basing it on other wars as well?

Vietnam? Well ok but rememer the French were killing the Vietnamese for about 60 years before we got there. Korea? Well I daresay the Japanese got us beat there and the Koreans will back me up on that one too. So if we're keeping score, don't forget to count the other players.

Oh don't get me wrong, the US has done some nasty stuff in its 200+ years but hardly on par with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. Gosh the Turks killed 3/4 of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire. In our own time, Milosovec oversaw the murders of some 300,000, the Russians killed over 100,000 Chechens in thier ugly little war in the Caucases and the international community hardly notices. The Sudanese have killed twice as many in Darfur and the world yawns. Almost a million hacked to death in Rwanda and somehow in your mind Uncle Same rates #1 on the genocide hit parade.

Either you have some deep seated biased against the USA or are willfully ignorant of history. Neither one is not much of an excuse if you want to have a rationale discussion. My suggestion if you want to be taken seriously is to read some actual books and steer away from the moonbat rantings that one might find on the internet.

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?

The army's estimates at the time were that there would have been 37,000 casualties. Not deaths, casualties. That's deaths + MIA's + incapacitating injuries. The many millions figure was invented later as a political justification for the bomb that had no basis in reality. Compare that to the 200,000 civilian deaths from the bombs and the attendant radiation.

There would have been no choice but to bomb the cities anyway which would have killed more people in the long run.

Conventional bombs don't have a long run. People are still dying of radiation sickness in those areas. That's an awfully 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.

Collateral damage was a new theory in WWII in which a countries ability to make war, based on the labor of its citizens was thought to be underminable by boming cities which house their industrial centers and labor pool. We have since come to realize that it is a poor tactic for waging war on dictators that don't care about the lives of their citizens.

Hmmm..

Now I have been following your posts for some time and I would like to challenge your rating system. So you place the US in war crimes as #1, Nazi Germany #2 and Japan #3.

So is that based purely on nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki as opposed to the millions murdered by #2 and #3 based upon racial inferiority which is what Nazism and Japanese fascism espoused? Or are you basing it on other wars as well?

Perhaps what we did to the Native American's, the Africans, and the Mexicans.

Apparently you haven't listened to word we were saying about what the invasion of Japan was going to be like. You think we were going to be lenient after Japan was conquered? No telling how long that was going to take.

They say that religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Appearantly any imaginary universe will do.

The war against Japan was a long, drawn out, bloody, conventional war. It was punctuated at the end with two nukes, but Japan was already beaten. They were trying to surrender and we knew it. There is no reason that a Japanese surrender after a conventional invasion would have gone any worse for Japan than a surrender after two nukes.

Hmmm..

Now I have been following your posts for some time and I would like to challenge your rating system. So you place the US in war crimes as #1, Nazi Germany #2 and Japan #3.

So is that based purely on nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki as opposed to the millions murdered by #2 and #3 based upon racial inferiority which is what Nazism and Japanese fascism espoused? Or are you basing it on other wars as well?

Vietnam? Well ok but rememer the French were killing the Vietnamese for about 60 years before we got there. Korea? Well I daresay the Japanese got us beat there and the Koreans will back me up on that one too. So if we're keeping score, don't forget to count the other players.

Oh don't get me wrong, the US has done some nasty stuff in its 200+ years but hardly on par with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. Gosh the Turks killed 3/4 of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire. In our own time, Milosovec oversaw the murders of some 300,000, the Russians killed over 100,000 Chechens in thier ugly little war in the Caucases and the international community hardly notices. The Sudanese have killed twice as many in Darfur and the world yawns. Almost a million hacked to death in Rwanda and somehow in your mind Uncle Same rates #1 on the genocide hit parade.

Either you have some deep seated biased against the USA or are willfully ignorant of history. Neither one is not much of an excuse if you want to have a rationale discussion. My suggestion if you want to be taken seriously is to read some actual books and steer away from the moonbat rantings that one might find on the internet.

*hands Molari a bottle of Bravari and a few Centauri Women* ;)

They say that religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Appearantly any imaginary universe will do.

The war against Japan was a long, drawn out, bloody, conventional war. It was punctuated at the end with two nukes, but Japan was already beaten. They were trying to surrender and we knew it. There is no reason that a Japanese surrender after a conventional invasion would have gone any worse for Japan than a surrender after two nukes.

That's what you think. They would've fought till their emperor told them that enough is enough. He did just that after Nagasaki and a good thing too. We did not want to invade Japan but we would have if he forced us too.

Conventional bombs don't have a long run. People are still dying of radiation sickness in those areas. That's an awfully long run.

See above post (Mine). If you mean that survivors are contracting cancer (Lukemia, in Japanese it translates out to Atomic Bomb Sickness), yes. If you mean that their familes are, sort of. If you mean that the idea is still irradiated and that people living there are dying like they did after the bomb was dropped, no, no, and HELL no.

Hiroshima is quite safe, even at ground zero. Hell, want to hear something sad (and very Japanese)? The nextdoor neighbor to the Atomic Bomb Dome is Hiroshima Stadium, home to the Hiroshima Carps baseball team. Yes, the damn gaudy thing is right across the street from the peace park and on the river next to the bridge that was the target.

The war against Japan was a long, drawn out, bloody, conventional war. It was punctuated at the end with two nukes, but Japan was already beaten. They were trying to surrender and we knew it. There is no reason that a Japanese surrender after a conventional invasion would have gone any worse for Japan than a surrender after two nukes.
*sighs* Please re-read about the surrender of Japan (post 24 in this thread). The point is not that the surrender would have gone any differently from a conventional one, the point is that the amount of deaths it would take to effect that surrender. The bomb does not have a direct cause and effect on Japan's decision to surrender, there were many, many forces at work, but it DID act as the catalist to bring it about at that time.

The best historical paraell I can draw is the shooting of the Archduke Whateverhisnamewas that started WWI. WWI would have happend even without that shooting. There were a lot of forces at work that led to WWI and you can't really say that if he WASN'T shot, WWI would have been avoided. Nor can you really lead from an assisination in Serbia to trench warfare in France. But everyone agrees that shot was the spark that started the mess. The bombs were the same.

To those who choose to be ignorant revisionists, keep these in mind:

1. This is the era before conventional bombing. The era's bombs, with the exception of the atomic bomb(how can it miss?), were so innaccurate, only 10% of the bombs actually hit target. The Japanese didn't have zoning. They aren't Russia. They aren't America. They all live on those tiny islands. There's no room for zoning, literally. They had houses next to schools and military faculties. All bombs that missed the military faculty would level houses and schools.

2. The Japanese aren't American or British or Aussie. They aren't French or African. They were trained to fight and die for their emporer. The US thought it was better to nuke a few cities than to continue fighting against such a crazed culture. They fought to the death everywhere else. Why would they simply let us take their homeland?

3. REvisionism SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO CLARIFY HISTORY. It should never be used to change history UNLESS the evidence proves that history, without any reasonable doubt, is wrong about the info. being revised. It should never be used to further anti-anyone propoganda. It should never be used to spread ignorance. It's a tool for fact, not fiction.

That's what you think. They would've fought till their emperor told them that enough is enough. He did just that after Nagasaki and a good thing too. We did not want to invade Japan but we would have if he forced us too.

There you go again. Arguing based on nothing but the certain knowledge that you can't be contradicted when you make shit up for an alternate universe.

Japan was already trying to surrender before we made preparations to invade. They knew that they were beaten. They were only looking for a face-saving way to do it. Open a fucking history book. There is more to the world than your own cozy fantasies.

There you go again. Arguing based on nothing but the certain knowledge that you can't be contradicted when you make shit up for an alternate universe.

Sorry dude but I am not pulling anything out of my butt.

Japan was already trying to surrender before we made preparations to invade.

Conditional Surrender was not an option. Potsdam was clear. Immediate and full unconditional surrender.

They knew that they were beaten.

They knew this before they even launched their campaign to begin with.

They were only looking for a face-saving way to do it. Open a fucking history book. There is more to the world than your own cozy fantasies.

I study history. I'm writing a 10 page history paper on the major battles of the Pacific War. I have studied the pacific war indepth even before this paper. Why don't you actually open a history book or take a culture class.

*sighs* Please re-read about the surrender of Japan (post 24 in this thread). The point is not that the surrender would have gone any differently from a conventional one, the point is that the amount of deaths it would take to effect that surrender. The bomb does not have a direct cause and effect on Japan's decision to surrender, there were many, many forces at work, but it DID act as the catalist to bring it about at that time.

I addressed that point with my first post on this topic. The Army's own numbers said that it would have taken 37,000 American casualties. And the army wasn't even hip to the fact that Japan already wanted to surrender, they only wanted to do it in a face saving manner.

Just so you don't think I'm taking a political stance on the issue, I should point out that I'm on the fence on whether or not it should have been dropped. I only piped up to point out that the whole "would have caused more deaths to do it the conventional way" argument is total bullshit.

The muddying issue for me is that it would have taken less lives, but it would have taken more time. And the USSR was getting ready to invade Japan as our WWII ally. That would have let them split Japan up the way they split up Germany. I'm not sure which would have done more damage to Japan. Nuclear fallout which is still causing birth defects, or soviet occpuation which has still left a mark on Germany's economy (the East is still economicly depressed.) At least Japan has the resources to remedy the radiation problems (not that they do, but that's not our fault.) With the bomb we effected surrender quickly, but at tremendous cost in civilian lives, and managed to keep the USSR from taking any credit.

Sorry dude but I am not pulling anything out of my butt.

You're pulling the standard fare out of your butt. If you'd just provide a little evidence for your claims I wouldn't have to level that charge at you. All you ever provide is your opinion and then act like I'm supposed to treat it as a fact.

I study history. I'm writing a 10 page history paper on the major battles of the Pacific War. I have studied the pacific war indepth even before this paper. Why don't you actually open a history book or take a culture class.

I have a masters in history. Yes. I am quite literally a history master. If you study history as much as you claim then I should point out that it's a horrible shame that you still have not learned how to cite a source or provide supporting evidence for a claim. Just take a look at your post. All you're doing is throwing around insults and boasts. I can take insults and I'm not above boasting, but at least I provide a fact or two on which to base my position. You cite your position as the basis of your position.

Japan was already trying to surrender before we made preparations to invade. They knew that they were beaten. They were only looking for a face-saving way to do it. Open a fucking history book. There is more to the world than your own cozy fantasies.
Perhaps you should open up one yourself and understand then that the Japanese were not trying to surrender, they were trying to get a cease fire in order to save something from the mess that they were in. They didn't even know what that something was beyond the overriding interest of the Showa Emperor to preserve the Imperial Throne, with full powers, and (hopefully) his place on it. Other demands being tossed about included the notion that the Imperial Army and Navy would be allowed to demobilze their own troops and let them keep their weapons.

THIS was what they were after. They rejected the Postdam Proclamation, the (then) Prime Minister of Japan said publically that the cabnet wouldn't even meet on it as it wasn't worthy of responce. This was a few weeks before the bombs were dropped.

Finally, note this, after the war when SCAP asked the Japanese government to write up a constitution, they proceeded to give him the Meiji Constitution with some cosmetic changes, but allowed the same situation and power structure that led to this mess in the first place intact. That's one of the reasons why America ended up writting Japan's constitution (in about a week).

Study more about Japanese culture. It helps explain a lot that was going on at the time.

I addressed that point with my first post on this topic. The Army's own numbers said that it would have taken 37,000 American casualties. And the army wasn't even hip to the fact that Japan already wanted to surrender, they only wanted to do it in a face saving manner.

That's the point it was the Army!

Casualties from the Chiefs of Staff: In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

Nimitz: A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.

MacArthur: A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed. Moreover, all these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

Seems to me, they all were expecting high casualties after the first 30 days. Also, they manufactured 500,000 Purple Hearts for the invasion of Japan.

Just so you don't think I'm taking a political stance on the issue, I should point out that I'm on the fence on whether or not it should have been dropped. I only piped up to point out that the whole "would have caused more deaths to do it the conventional way" argument is total bullshit.

Bizzzz wrong oh.

I addressed that point with my first post on this topic. The Army's own numbers said that it would have taken 37,000 American casualties. And the army wasn't even hip to the fact that Japan already wanted to surrender, they only wanted to do it in a face saving manner.
And the Japanese were planning an all out defence of the home islands. How many civilians would have actually fought? Hard to say, but experiance of native Japanese on Okinawa (Okinawans are technically Japanese, but don't usually view themselves that way) showed that many would. AND, of course, America would continue the bombing raids that it had been using.

I only piped up to point out that the whole "would have caused more deaths to do it the conventional way" argument is total bullshit.

The muddying issue for me is that it would have taken less lives, but it would have taken more time. And the USSR was getting ready to invade Japan as our WWII ally. That would have let them split Japan up the way they split up Germany. I'm not sure which would have done more damage to Japan. Nuclear fallout which is still causing birth defects, or soviet occpuation which has still left a mark on Germany's economy (the East is still economicly depressed.)
How on earth do you compute that it would have taken less lives with a full scale invasion, continued bombing, Soviet advacement (and it's been stated many times on this forum just how nice they were in Germany when they advanced), and famine would take less than 250,000 lives? Especially as we're talking about a scale of months. Or are you assuming that the minute America set foot on Honshuu that Japan would have just given up?

At least Japan has the resources to remedy the radiation problems (not that they do, but that's not our fault.)
And you see this how (Given that the survivors are given free medical care and both cities are green and growing, again)?

You're pulling the standard fare out of your butt. If you'd just provide a little evidence for your claims I wouldn't have to level that charge at you. All you ever provide is your opinion and then act like I'm supposed to treat it as a fact.

I provided what the military was saying. See my previous post. I do not feel like reposting it.

I have a masters in history.

Return it becuase it is quite obvious you have not done any research into this whatsoever.

Yes. I am quite literally a history master.

No one is a history master. You may own a master's degree but that does not mean that you know everything.

If you study history as much as you claim then I should point out that it's a horrible shame that you still have not learned how to cite a source or provide supporting evidence for a claim.

I've been citing it. US Army, US Navy, Joint Chiefs of Staff. I group it all under the military. So yes i have sourced it. I sourced it as the US military as all the branches fall under it.

Just take a look at your post. All you're doing is throwing around insults and boasts. I can take insults and I'm not above boasting, but at least I provide a fact or two on which to base my position. You cite your position as the basis of your position.

I've been providing facts. Your just to blind to understand it.

I have a masters in history. Yes. I am quite literally a history master. If you study history as much as you claim then I should point out that it's a horrible shame that you still have not learned how to cite a source or provide supporting evidence for a claim. Just take a look at your post. All you're doing is throwing around insults and boasts. I can take insults and I'm not above boasting, but at least I provide a fact or two on which to base my position. You cite your position as the basis of your position.
MA in History? For what period and culture?

As for me, I have Japanese studies under my belt, have studied Japan for well over 10 years and I live here. Your point?

We demanded Japan's unconditional surrender. They wanted conditions. The bombs were warranted. If they wouldn't have started shiat they wouldn't have been knee-deep in it.

Heh, you know what I think...

We shoulda invaded, lost 250,000 soldiers and marines while aking out another 1,000,000 Japanese, and end up completely destroying the entire country.
Or, we could've just dropped a couple of bombs, killed 250,000 instantly and painlessly, and caused another 125,000 to die slow painful deaths from radiation poisioning, and at no cost to our troops.

I choose option number two.

I addressed that point with my first post on this topic. The Army's own numbers said that it would have taken 37,000 American casualties. And the army wasn't even hip to the fact that Japan already wanted to surrender, they only wanted to do it in a face saving manner.

37,000? I would like to see the source for this figure. I find it interesting considering we took 50,000 casualties just taking Okinawa, 23,000 on Iwo Jima yet somehow you claim the Army downgraded casulaty estimates on an attack on the homeland? That simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Also I think it needs to be clarified that seeking peace talks is not the same as surrendering. A cease fire is not the same as surrender. Keep in mind that the Japanese army was fairly intact in Korea, China and Indochina. That is quite a bargaining chip in terms of what they thought they might be able to extract in negotiations. It had less to do with surrendering in a face saving manner (which based upon Bushido, isn't possible) and more to do with what Japan felt they could still hang on to in terms of territorial holdings. Keep in mind that the Japanese were less worried about casulaty figures than we were. Without the bomb, we would have been confined to a conventional assault, one in which the Japanese were quite adept in exploiting for maximum casulaties. The whole point of demanding unconditional surrender was to not repeat the mistakes of WW1 and also, please keep in mind that unconditional surrender was agreed upon by all Allied powers.[/QUOTE]


Just so you don't think I'm taking a political stance on the issue, I should point out that I'm on the fence on whether or not it should have been dropped. I only piped up to point out that the whole "would have caused more deaths to do it the conventional way" argument is total bullshit.

Again, based upon the casulaty figures from the Iwo and Okinawa campaigns, I fail to see where estimates of 37,000 casulaties invading the homeland come into play?

Perhaps what we did to the Native American's, the Africans, and the Mexicans.

Mmmmmm...last time I checked we didn't have any colonies in Africa, didn't fight any wars over there. You might want to check with the French and Brits and a few other European countries who had colonial holdings in Africa.

Mexico? The Mexican-American war hardly ranks up there in terms of brutal atroctites. Oh and don't forget, Mexico was a Spanish colony for almost 300 years so I think they got us beat in terms of oppression.

As for the Native Americans? Sure I'll grant you that. Then again, since you're keep score for your rating system, remember those nasty Canadians, Spainards and Portuguese as well.

Mmmmmm...last time I checked we didn't have any colonies in Africa, didn't fight any wars over there. You might want to check with the French and Brits and a few other European countries who had colonial holdings in Africa.

Barbary Pirates were in Africa.

*takes away his Bravari*

Barbary Pirates were in Africa.

*takes away his Bravari*

Give that back. :eek:

Well you have a point but hardly a major action in terms of warfare. Millions for defense but not a penny for tribute you know.

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.

Ever wonder why the bombs weren't dropped on Germany avoiding the amphibious invasion, etc, etc. Many more soldiers died in Europe than in an hypothetic invasion of Japan. Germans weren't the only ones that thought races were inherently different. Ask an american in 1940 what they thought of the japanese and the answer would be eerely similar to that of a german asked about a tzigane.
Nuclear power had to be established as a reference to slow communist advance. After 1944 communism was much more of a threat to American interests than fascism, which they were rather close to in a puritanical, conservative sort of way. FDR wasn't in accordance with the general american opinion. propaganda about sunken american ships was inflated throughout the first years of the war just to keep the public mildly outraged at german actions. Thank god Hitler was idiotic enough to declare war on th US when the US declared war on Japan. If that hadn't been the case there would have been no end to WWII, just a stale-mate on the eastern front for years on-end.

(which based upon Bushido, isn't possible)
While I agree on the whole with your post, I wanted to bring this up as it keep irking me everytime I read it.

Bushido was a code used by samurai. On the whole, their adherence to that code was about the same as knights with chivalry, meaning they followed it when dealing with equals in the social structure, but didn't feel too compelled to observe it when dealing with those of lesser status.

By the time the officers of the Imperial armed forces were engaged in war, the samurai had been dead for a very, very long time. To state that the Japanese military was following bushido would be akin to stating that the English army upheld the knightly code of chivalry during WWII and fought Nazis according to it.

To state that the Japanese population was informed by bushido would be the same as saying that thanks to the code of chivalry, the English withstood the London Blitz.

Or Italian troops really were the heirs to the Roman Legions.

Or Nazis to the Holy Roman Empire and the Teutonic Knights… so on and so forth.

Some of the officers viewed themselves as filling the roles of samurai, but real samurai would probably view them as a real medieval knight would view Sir Paul McCartney, not really a true knight and not a follower of chivalry.

Give that back. :eek:

Well you have a point but hardly a major action in terms of warfare. Millions for defense but not a penny for tribute you know.

Oh alright!

*gives back the bravari and your third wife*

While I agree on the whole with your post, I wanted to bring this up as it keep irking me everytime I read it.

Bushido was a code used by samurai. On the whole, their adherence to that code was about the same as knights with chivalry, meaning they followed it when dealing with equals in the social structure, but didn't feel too compelled to observe it when dealing with those of lesser status.

By the time the officers of the Imperial armed forces were engaged in war, the samurai had been dead for a very, very long time. To state that the Japanese military was following bushido would be akin to stating that the English army upheld the knightly code of chivalry during WWII and fought Nazis according to it.

Oh I agree with what you are saying in terms of bushido being akin to Western chivalry. The fact that the Japanese chose to pick and choose the parts of bushido that fit into their imperial ambitions doesn't make my point any less credible. What I was pointing out in my previous post was the claim that the Japanese were seeking a face saving surrender which I stated was not an option under Bushido, classical or the version Imperial Japan had adopted.

The Japanese military during WW2 touted bushido as a way of motivation and code among the troops, not that it resembled the medieval version in anyway. Kind of how Islam is touted as a religion of peace yet it's name is invoked in cries of Death to America/Israel/Denmark (insert country of choice for annihilation).

Again the point I was making before was that too many people confuse seeking peace talks with surrender. Peace talks meant discussing an end to hostilities with the US, not necessarily turning over occupied lands or demobilizing the Imperial Japanese Army.

The whole issue of whether the bomb should have been dropped or not is just one of those hot topics. What irks me about it is with many discussions of history is that it's fine to have an opinion but too many have an uninformed one or simply defend an argument on emotions.

Anyway, good point regarding the bushido code.

Oh alright!

*gives back the bravari and your third wife*

Which wife? Famine, Pestilence or Death?

Which wife? Famine, Pestilence or Death?

LOL!

The one you kept after your divorce of the other two. If memory serves me right, that would be Death?