NationStates Jolt Archive

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.


So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

Because they didn't surrender until after.

I heard somewhere that they did...


Ah, nevermind this is pointless. Someone delete it

The Japanese did surrender, but the initial surrender was not unconditional like the Americans wanted.

what are you, like...12?

The Japanese did surrender, but the initial surrender was not unconditional like the Americans wanted.

No, they wanted a negotiated peace.

I heard somewhere that they did...


Ah, nevermind this is pointless. Someone delete it

Random un-named sources are highly untrustworthy.

The Japanese did surrender, but the initial surrender was not unconditional like the Americans wanted.

Still incorrect. The civilian faction of the Japanese leadership (who had little power) had tried to open discussions regarding a conditional surrender. However , no surrender took place before August 15, 1945.

And in a pobably vain attmpt to short circuit the inevitable re-run of the "the bombs were unnecessary" debate, here's where it generally ends:
The civilain leadership was trying to grope towards a means of surrender. The extent they would have been able to get the military leaders, who held most of the power, to go along is almost nil.

The average Japanese would not have fough tooth and nail to the end. However, enough would have, and the military would have enforced enough mass suicides, that the deaths of a few hundred thousand civilians was less than would have occured in either an invasion or a seige.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was a major logistics center, as well as the headquarters for several armies. Nagasaki was an important naval base as well as naval ship yard. The original target of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki was the Kokura arsenal, the largest Japanese arsenal in Japan, and a major center of Japan's chemical weapons.

Japan was working on a nuclear weapon of it's own. The extent of their research is still not known, as both Japanese and US forces destroyed muchj of the evidence. One tantilising rumor (to be taken with the appropriate amount of salt) suggests that they even managed a fizzeled test in Korea.

Because they didn't surrender until after.
Not true. However, the surrenders were conditional on keeping some of their imperial colonies.

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.

So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:
To demonstrate American power to the USSR.

The only question I have when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons in World War II was whether the objective could have been accomplished by dropping the bomb several miles OUTSIDE the city rather than directly upon it. A flashy show of force that would also save lives. It was presented as an alternate scenario in a collection of short alternate history stories, and I'm curious as to people's opinions on the matter. I, for instance, feel it would have been just as effective, perhaps even preventing the need for a second bomb.

Random un-named sources are highly untrustworthy.



Still incorrect. The civilian faction of the Japanese leadership (who had little power) had tried to open discussions regarding a conditional surrender. However , no surrender took place before August 15, 1945.

And in a pobably vain attmpt to short circuit the inevitable re-run of the "the bombs were unnecessary" debate, here's where it generally ends:
The civilain leadership was trying to grope towards a means of surrender. The extent they would have been able to get the military leaders, who held most of the power, to go along is almost nil.

The average Japanese would not have fough tooth and nail to the end. However, enough would have, and the military would have enforced enough mass suicides, that the deaths of a few hundred thousand civilians was less than would have occured in either an invasion or a seige.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was a major logistics center, as well as the headquarters for several armies. Nagasaki was an important naval base as well as naval ship yard. The original target of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki was the Kokura arsenal, the largest Japanese arsenal in Japan, and a major center of Japan's chemical weapons.

Japan was working on a nuclear weapon of it's own. The extent of their research is still not known, as both Japanese and US forces destroyed muchj of the evidence. One tantilising rumor (to be taken with the appropriate amount of salt) suggests that they even managed a fizzeled test in Korea.

Actually, Japan had considered, and rejected nuclear options. They were, instead, working on weapons based on such technologies as sonic disruption, which would have been enormously potent at short ranges, and almost useless at long range.

America made a number of excuses about 'legitimate military targets' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those excuses were no more honest or realistic than the fairytale WMD's that Saddam was supposed to happen. A 'logistics' centre in a city is not a realistic justification for a nuclear strike on a civilian city, any more than Israel firing into Lebanon's marketplaces was 'legitimate'.

It is sad that America as a whole is even willing to listen to such claptrap out of the powers-that-be, much less tolerate or even endorse it.

The real reason the US dropped nuclear devices on Japanese cities, was that they had spent a hell of a lot of money on it, and wanted to see it in action. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatant women and children died in the name of American hubris.

The real reason the US dropped nuclear devices on Japanese cities, was that they had spent a hell of a lot of money on it, and wanted to see it in action. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatant women and children died in the name of American hubris.

Care to prove that statement? I find it hard to believe that would be the main reason.

Not true.

Yes true, unless you can come up with evidence that magically contradicts the August 15th surrender documents.

However, the surrenders were conditional on keeping some of their imperial colonies.

Again, no.

To demonstrate American power to the USSR.

An old chestnut often thrown out. That would require Truman to have been more focused on the aftermath of the war tahn the conduct of it, which seems unlikely.

The only question I have when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons in World War II was whether the objective could have been accomplished by dropping the bomb several miles OUTSIDE the city rather than directly upon it. A flashy show of force that would also save lives. It was presented as an alternate scenario in a collection of short alternate history stories, and I'm curious as to people's opinions on the matter. I, for instance, feel it would have been just as effective, perhaps even preventing the need for a second bomb.

Another old chestnut that's thrown out without much convincing evidence. Remember that these weapons were seen as simply large explosives. We didn't precede the fire bombings of Tokyo or Osaka with demonstrations. Why would we have done so with a highly valuable weapon in low supply. And again, remember that both cities were military targets.

Grave_n_idle, I'm off to lunch. I'll address your errors in a little bit.

The only question I have when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons in World War II was whether the objective could have been accomplished by dropping the bomb several miles OUTSIDE the city rather than directly upon it. A flashy show of force that would also save lives. It was presented as an alternate scenario in a collection of short alternate history stories, and I'm curious as to people's opinions on the matter. I, for instance, feel it would have been just as effective, perhaps even preventing the need for a second bomb.

... because the government can explain away any explosion in an unpopulated area... Even claiming it to be a test of their own super weapon.

but when a city dissapears overnight... hard for any government to explain that away other than saying 1) The enemy has a super weapon. 2) Oops, our bad, it was our fault.

and I don't think they would choose option 2... ;)

Actually, Japan had considered, and rejected nuclear options. They were, instead, working on weapons based on such technologies as sonic disruption, which would have been enormously potent at short ranges, and almost useless at long range.

America made a number of excuses about 'legitimate military targets' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those excuses were no more honest or realistic than the fairytale WMD's that Saddam was supposed to happen. A 'logistics' centre in a city is not a realistic justification for a nuclear strike on a civilian city, any more than Israel firing into Lebanon's marketplaces was 'legitimate'.

It is sad that America as a whole is even willing to listen to such claptrap out of the powers-that-be, much less tolerate or even endorse it.

The real reason the US dropped nuclear devices on Japanese cities, was that they had spent a hell of a lot of money on it, and wanted to see it in action. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatant women and children died in the name of American hubris.

Boo-fucking-hoo. This is war, deal with it.

And, just so we're clear, the scientists of the Manhattan Project conducted a nuclear test at Los Alamos before ever deploying the atomic bomb in combat. The reason we dropped the atomic bomb was to demonstrate that fighting the war would be fruitless to the Japanese. Two devestated cities later, the Japs surrendered, and a war that had claimed over fifty million other lives was over. Look at Japan nowadays, one of the largest militaries in the world, backed by one of the most free and powerful societes in the Pacific.

But, yeah, fuck the Japs, we don't care about them. You're right, AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN!

It's actually because Truman went on a bender.

Care to prove that statement? I find it hard to believe that would be the main reason.

Find it hard to believe then. I have no problems believing it, from what I've seen of American history and current policy.

Our entire approach to Japan throughout our 'involvement' was laughable... sending ambassadors to Japan that refused to communicate with Japanese dignitaries, for example. We deliberately stuck a stick in that hornets nest to allow us to finally get involved in all the fun, we placed legitimate Japanese citizens in this country in the equivalent of domestic concentration camps, and we treated the Japanese with just as much respect after the main hostilities were finished.

There was really no reason to drop nuclear devices on Japanese cities. They had no active allies, and couldn't have realistically mounted a landwar or serious bombardment of the US mainland. Even with no surrender, the Japanese were about as dangerous to us as Saddam was with his fictional nuclear arsenal.

The argument is used that Japan couldn't have surrendered because of the weakness of the non-military faction... but, by bombing civilian centres we avoided damaging their military infrastructure, and pressured the civilian population... it doesn't add up with the excuses used. So - there is another reason behind the excuses, why we dropped the first and only nuclear devices to be used in anger, on civilian population centres of a nation that was little/no threat to us.

Another old chestnut that's thrown out without much convincing evidence. Remember that these weapons were seen as simply large explosives. We didn't precede the fire bombings of Tokyo or Osaka with demonstrations. Why would we have done so with a highly valuable weapon in low supply. And again, remember that both cities were military targets.

Technically, whenever two nations are at war, any location in either nation is a legitimate military target. Hence Dresden, Leibniz, London, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and all the other civilian population centers devastated during WWII were perfectly legitimate targets, as the aim in war is not only to kill the enemy's soldiers but also to cripple their ability to produce more.

Remember that these weapons were seen as simply large explosives.
"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."

There was really no reason to drop nuclear devices on Japanese cities. They had no active allies, and couldn't have realistically mounted a landwar or serious bombardment of the US mainland. Even with no surrender, the Japanese were about as dangerous to us as Saddam was with his fictional nuclear arsenal.


Well except that the US was a signatory to the Declaration of the United nations and the commonwealth was still engaged in the CBI theater so ignoring japan wasn't really an option.

Can you think of a quicker way to force an unconditional surrender? I can't.

Boo-fucking-hoo. This is war, deal with it.


Yes. For the military. But, not for the citizens - which is what Geneva protocols and conventions are designed to specifically address.


And, just so we're clear, the scientists of the Manhattan Project conducted a nuclear test at Los Alamos before ever deploying the atomic bomb in combat.


Blowing up an underground device in a big sandbox is irrelevent in terms of battle-field testing. The first installments of the M16 were theoretically effective at what they were designed for - but active firing in Alaskan tests showed them to be severely flawed for coldweather usage.


The reason we dropped the atomic bomb was to demonstrate that fighting the war would be fruitless to the Japanese. Two devestated cities later, the Japs surrendered, and a war that had claimed over fifty million other lives was over.


More than fifty million died in World War Two... okay, not arguing that. However, what was the Japanese contribution to that total? You invoke a figure that is almost irrelevent in terms of the 'target' of the nuclear strikes.

And again - attacking non-combatants and sowing the soil with salt was acceptable in ancient Canaan, but we are (supposedly) a little more civilised now. Our wars are conducted within certain conventions and protocols.

Look at Japan nowadays, one of the largest militaries in the world, backed by one of the most free and powerful societes in the Pacific.


Military? Peace-keeping force, surely.

But, yeah, fuck the Japs, we don't care about them. You're right, AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN!

You keep saying 'Japs', which I assume is your derogatory terminology for the Japanese. Do you 'care about them'? You can't even show respect in terminology... I wonder how objective you are?

Our entire approach to Japan throughout our 'involvement' was laughable... sending ambassadors to Japan that refused to communicate with Japanese dignitaries, for example. We deliberately stuck a stick in that hornets nest to allow us to finally get involved in all the fun, we placed legitimate Japanese citizens in this country in the equivalent of domestic concentration camps, and we treated the Japanese with just as much respect after the main hostilities were finished.

Japan was eyeing American territory in the Pacific for quite some time, my friend, a conflict was inevitable. While I agree that more could have been done to prolong our involvement in World War II, it still stands that America would eventually have to get involved, one way or another.

And, arguing that the Japanese internment camps were like concentration camps is complete bullshit. Yes, conditions were tough, yes, it was completely injust and unnessecary, but you can hardly compare it to a death camp.

Can you think of a quicker way to force an unconditional surrender? I can't.
Inform them that we had another bomb after vaporizing Hiroshima. Supply pictures.

Technically, whenever two nations are at war, any location in either nation is a legitimate military target. Hence Dresden, Leibniz, London, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and all the other civilian population centers devastated during WWII were perfectly legitimate targets, as the aim in war is not only to kill the enemy's soldiers but also to cripple their ability to produce more.

Actually - no. You might want to review your Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

Attacking a military target in a city is one thing (like 'precision' Allied bombing in some German cities), but indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets are disallowed, as are attacks that might become indiscriminate.

You can't 'precision' bomb with a nuclear bomb. You can't hit the gun factory, and avoid innocent casualties.

Inform them that we had another bomb after vaporizing Hiroshima. Supply pictures.

Would that be quicker? I doubt it. Even then, you agree that dropping one was the preferred option.

"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."

"I am woman, hear me roar."

Actually - no. You might want to review your Geneva Conventions and Protocols.


Which wouldn't apply to Japan because they were in breach of them at that point.

Would that be quicker? I doubt it. Even then, you agree that dropping one was the preferred option.

Well, we wouldn't have to wait until Nagasaki. Dropping one was the fastest, not the best. I would have preferred precision strikes on the military leaders until they agreed to go along with the civilian leaders and accept a surrender.

Which wouldn't apply to Japan because they were in breach of them at that point.

Breaking the Geneva Convention does not mean that it no longer applies to you.

Yes. For the military. But, not for the citizens - which is what Geneva protocols and conventions are designed to specifically address.

Not a single military in period after its inception have followed them to the letter, and the Japs sure as hell didn't.

Blowing up an underground device in a big sandbox is irrelevent in terms of battle-field testing. The first installments of the M16 were theoretically effective at what they were designed for - but active firing in Alaskan tests showed them to be severely flawed for coldweather usage.

The testing was conducted above ground, actually.

More than fifty million died in World War Two... okay, not arguing that. However, what was the Japanese contribution to that total? You invoke a figure that is almost irrelevent in terms of the 'target' of the nuclear strikes.

And again - attacking non-combatants and sowing the soil with salt was acceptable in ancient Canaan, but we are (supposedly) a little more civilised now. Our wars are conducted within certain conventions and protocols.


Always bitching about attacking noncombatants.

Guess what? In total war, there are no noncombatants. In Germany, in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in Russia, and in Japan, almost every able-bodied adult (and most older children) were devoted to the war effort, from collecting scrap metal to actually serving in the armed forces. This would make them a legitmate military target.

Military? Peace-keeping force, surely.

Get your head out of your ass, the JSDF is a "peacekeeping force" in name only. They possess one of the largest and most modern militaries in the Pacific, on par with the PRC and South Korea.

You keep saying 'Japs', which I assume is your derogatory terminology for the Japanese. Do you 'care about them'? You can't even show respect in terminology... I wonder how objective you are?

Aw, does my political incorrectness bother you? Will anyone really be offended if I say Jap instead of Japanese?

I didn't think so.

Has it been a month since the last one of these...already!?!

Breaking the Geneva Convention does not mean that it no longer applies to you.

Well, yeah, it does actually. It's just a treaty, not some holy scripture. If WWII taught us anything is that it only applies to the extent that people want it to.

Edit: Anyway, the fourth Geneva convention - civilians - didn't even come into existence until 1949, so this whole argument is silly.

Japan was eyeing American territory in the Pacific for quite some time, my friend, a conflict was inevitable. While I agree that more could have been done to prolong our involvement in World War II, it still stands that America would eventually have to get involved, one way or another.


Yes - that strategic water...

A conflict was not inevitable. There was no conflict between Japanese forces and the US until something like a year after the commencement of the policy of directly insulting Japanese officials up to the highest level.

It was a calculated policy, based on what we knew about Japanese societal constraints, deliberately to force loss of face, and force Japan to react.

The fact that they stood our crap for so long is testament to how reluctant the Japanese were to increase the conflict in their arena.


And, arguing that the Japanese internment camps were like concentration camps is complete bullshit. Yes, conditions were tough, yes, it was completely injust and unnessecary, but you can hardly compare it to a death camp.

I can compare it because of what it was. We did exactly the same thing the Nazi's did - we headhunted legitimate occupants of the nation based on nothing but their race, and we incarcerated them in low grade internment camps, where many died. They were not designed to be holiday homes - the whole attitude was punitive, and there was no legitimate due process.

We might not have employed 'gas chambers', but being slightly less barbaric than one of histories greatest monsters is hardly a cause for applause.

Well, we wouldn't have to wait until Nagasaki. Dropping one was the fastest, not the best. I would have preferred precision strikes on the military leaders until they agreed to go along with the civilian leaders and accept a surrender.

While this might have been a viable option nowadays, weapons systems of the day generally did not allow for surgical warfare of any kind.

Which wouldn't apply to Japan because they were in breach of them at that point.

So?

The conventions bind those who are signatories - it doesn't matter what your opponent does.

Which is the reason we use all these fancy names nowadays, but don't formally issue declarations of war since WW2. The US has already established it is unwilling to be held responsible for it's actions, so they avoid the ramifications by not formally declaring war.

While this might have been a viable option nowadays, weapons systems of the day generally did not allow for surgical warfare of any kind.

I'm not talking about surgical strikes. We probably could have taken out the military leaders with fewer Japanese deaths than the 500,000+ currently attributable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Although, in a way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did something good. They all but guaranteed that no government will ever use a nuclear weapon again.

Well, yeah, it does actually. It's just a treaty, not some holy scripture. If WWII taught us anything is that it only applies to the extent that people want it to.

If history has taught us anything, it's that "the people" don't matter one iota.

Actually - no. You might want to review your Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

Attacking a military target in a city is one thing (like 'precision' Allied bombing in some German cities), but indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets are disallowed, as are attacks that might become indiscriminate.

You can't 'precision' bomb with a nuclear bomb. You can't hit the gun factory, and avoid innocent casualties.

"Innocent" casualties? Geneva convention? Being at my most cynical, I call bullshit.

As Velkya mentioned, there are no innocents in total war. I agree with that. Further, the world has too many people in the first place, and getting rid of some extras should not be discouraged. As for the Geneva Convention, not only was it created mainly by idealists with a very different view of human nature than I have -- thus causing me to disagree with it -- but it's barely followed by anyone these days, at least in practice.

How about a blockade around the islands? Japan had and has little (if any) fossil fuels. Eventually they would have to fight with bows and arrows, or surrender.

Was that option viable?

If history has taught us anything, it's that "the people" don't matter one iota.

Not true. "The people" are an excellent political tool and/or testing bed for political tools. And they're a valuable resource (where else would governments get their soldiers, labour, etc.?).

How about a blockade around the islands? Japan had and has little (if any) fossil fuels. Eventually they would have to fight with bows and arrows, or surrender.

Was that option viable?
Too costly overall. A blockade would have taken months or years and caused many more deaths than the atomic bombs did.

Not true. "The people" are an excellent political tool and/or testing bed for political tools. And they're a valuable resource (where else would governments get their soldiers, labour, etc.?).

Just so. They are no longer "the people" and have become tools and resources of the state, and expendable ones at that.

Just so. They are no longer "the people" and have become tools and resources of the state, and expendable ones at that.

Technically, as long as they are still called by "the people", they are "the people". A government with enough power can redefine words to mean anything it wants them to mean. Therefore, they still are "the people" (and the abstract concept of a society of free and equal human beings, or whatever "the people" was formerly defined as, simply ceases to exist).

Whether it was a military neccessity or not, it was quite simply cowardly.

So?

The conventions bind those who are signatories - it doesn't matter what your opponent does.

Which is the reason we use all these fancy names nowadays, but don't formally issue declarations of war since WW2. The US has already established it is unwilling to be held responsible for it's actions, so they avoid the ramifications by not formally declaring war.

It's a treaty. If another party is in breach, it's not binding. Like all treaties.

It's not some holy writ.

Not a single military in period after its inception have followed them to the letter, and the Japs sure as hell didn't.


I think you lie. I think most militaries have been fairly tightly bound by them, when formal war was announced. Admittedly, many militaries have refused to declare formal war - the US included.

And, as I pointed out - it doesn't matter if the Japanese did breach the protocols... you aren't bound by the Geneva protocols and conventions on a 'mutual' basis - you are bound by being a signatory. If Japan signed, and then breached, they were in breach. If the US signed and then breached, they were in breach. It doesn't matter what tactics your opponent employs.


The testing was conducted above ground, actually.


Which would be irrelevent to the point - a surface bomb in the desert only gives an idea of what the blast looks like, it tells you little about how such a device reacts with a real environment. 'Trinity' was the ONLY nuclear test before the dropping of two more devices on civilians.

Let us see what Wikipedia says about the testing at Los Alamos:

"The test was originally to confirm that the implosion-type nuclear weapon design was feasible, and to give the scientists and military officers an idea of what the actual size and effects of a nuclear explosion would be before they were used in combat against Japan. While the test gave a good approximation of many of the explosion's effects, it did not give an appreciable understanding of nuclear fallout, which was not well understood by the project scientists until well after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Japan was our 'laboratory' for a largely untested weapon technology.


Always bitching about attacking noncombatants.

Guess what? In total war, there are no noncombatants. In Germany, in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in Russia, and in Japan, almost every able-bodied adult (and most older children) were devoted to the war effort, from collecting scrap metal to actually serving in the armed forces. This would make them a legitmate military target.


No - still not true. The Geneva Conventions and Protocols still argue with you. It doesn't matter if people are melting down pots for the war effort, they are still non-combatants. An argument CAN be made that civilians working IN a munnitions factory have revoked their right to claim civilian status - but only while they are at work, and only as occupants of an official 'target'.

If you bombed the same worker in their car on the way home, you have attacked a non-combatant, and are in breach of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.


Get your head out of your ass, the JSDF is a "peacekeeping force" in name only. They possess one of the largest and most modern militaries in the Pacific, on par with the PRC and South Korea.


I won't even dignify the first portion... the peacekeeping force is a peacekeeping force because that is what it does. You give guns to your police, it doesn't make them an army. Historically, the Japanese peacekeeping force has also remained entirely in and around Japan - they have only recently performed extra-Japanese 'peacekeepng' under pressure from the US.


Aw, does my political incorrectness bother you? Will anyone really be offended if I say Jap instead of Japanese?

I didn't think so.

Yes - I will, for one. And you should be.

It isn't a matter of 'political incorrectness', it is a matter of lacking the basic respect to refrain from using derogatory terms. If you dehumanise your enemy through racial slurs, it is easier to consider them an 'other', and to ignore atrocities you carry out against them.

Our language shapes, and refelcts, our thoughts. Your use of racial slurs is evidence that you are partisan in the debate, and thus cannot be expected to make objective points.

Edit: Anyway, the fourth Geneva convention - civilians - didn't even come into existence until 1949, so this whole argument is silly.

On the contrary - someone else made the point that attacking civilians 'is okay'... it isn't, according to Geneva conventions. That is present tense.

It is not unreasonable to think that bombing the crap out of citizens has never been 'okay', with or without treaties.

www.doug-long.com


Have a gander and come back to us.

How about supporting some internal faction, willing to fight against the military?

I am sure that by 1945 the average Japanese citizen was not very fond of the ruling military regime. Someone would have put up a fight.

While this might have been a viable option nowadays, weapons systems of the day generally did not allow for surgical warfare of any kind.

Utter rubbish. British forces carried out 'surgical warfare' in Germany (despite the far less surgical approach that Germany had been using in the UK), and that is just interms of air platforms. Other actions were 'surgically' carried out by individuals or units of trained professionals - unless you really believe that World War Two consisted entirely of throwing bombs and lining up in fields to shoot at each other.

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.


So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

Where did you learn your history? Oh...sorry...it's obvious you didn't learn any history.

On the contrary - someone else made the point that attacking civilians 'is okay'... it isn't, according to Geneva conventions. That is present tense.
What if we haven't signed the Geneva Convention or disagree with it? Does that make it okay?


It is not unreasonable to think that bombing the crap out of citizens has never been 'okay', with or without treaties.

You make George Orwell sad.

"Innocent" casualties? Geneva convention? Being at my most cynical, I call bullshit.

As Velkya mentioned, there are no innocents in total war. I agree with that. Further, the world has too many people in the first place, and getting rid of some extras should not be discouraged. As for the Geneva Convention, not only was it created mainly by idealists with a very different view of human nature than I have -- thus causing me to disagree with it -- but it's barely followed by anyone these days, at least in practice.

It doesn't amtter what you say.

One assumes you have not yet achieved 'nation' status (ego aside), and thus probably would not be a legitimate signatory to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. You opinion is, thus, a mosquito bitching in a hurricane.

As to whether or not the Geneva Conventions and Protocols are rigidly followed, that is a matter of the honour of the individual nations. Israel has formal war declared with Lebanon - thus, their attacks on civilians were calculated breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. That is something the national conscience of Israel has to deal with - and it SHOULD have been condemned by other signatories.

The US, on the other hand, has decided they cannot or will not be bound by a document they signed (no big surprises), but at least they are more 'honest' about it - by not declaring formal war in the first place. Except for that little scuffle where they nuked two cities, of course.

You and Velkya are welcome to continue your circlejerk of mutual admiration, I don't accept your argument that there are no innocents, and neither do the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

Too costly overall. A blockade would have taken months or years and caused many more deaths than the atomic bombs did.

Speculation.

A blockade might have been enough to instantly overturn the Japanese military. One wonders why we didn't try it, before engaging in mass unilateral civlian casualties...

Speculation.

A blockade might have been enough to instantly overturn the Japanese military. One wonders why we didn't try it, before engaging in mass unilateral civlian casualties...

Haha, no.

It's a treaty. If another party is in breach, it's not binding. Like all treaties.

It's not some holy writ.

The treaty is not signed on a friendly-friendly basis - you are not conditional on just one other nation to hold you accountable. The Treaty binds the signatories to the Conventions and Protocols, not to conditional participation based on the actions of other nations.

If the US signed the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, they are bound until they remove themselves from the treaty - even if EVERY other nation had already revoked their own status.

Haha, no.

Haha...seriously.

www.doug-long.com/summary

Speculation.

A blockade might have been enough to instantly overturn the Japanese military. One wonders why we didn't try it, before engaging in mass unilateral civlian casualties...

Ah, so starving a nation to death would have been more humane than the Atomic attacks...

What if we haven't signed the Geneva Convention or disagree with it? Does that make it okay?


I wouldn't say so - but at least 'breaching' conventions you refused to sign isn't a matter of failing to honour a binding contract.


You make George Orwell sad.

I thought he was dead...

Haha, no.

Haha. Why?

Actually, Japan had considered, and rejected nuclear options. They were, instead, working on weapons based on such technologies as sonic disruption, which would have been enormously potent at short ranges, and almost useless at long range.

Buuu. Wrong answer, try again.

Nuclear Weapons - World War II

In the fall of 1940, the Japanese army concluded that constructing an atomic bomb was indeed feasible. The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, or Rikken, was assigned the project under the direction of Yoshio Nishina. The Japanese Navy was also diligently working to create its own "superbomb" under a project was dubbed F-Go, headed by Bunsaku Arakatsu at the end of World War II. The F-Go program [or No. F, for fission] began at Kyoto in 1942. However, the military commitment wasn't backed with adequate resources, and the Japanese effort to an atomic bomb had made little progress by the end of the war.

Japan's nuclear efforts were disrupted in April 1945 when a B-29 raid damaged Nishina's thermal diffusion separation apparatus. Some reports claim the Japanese subsequently moved their atomic operations to Konan [Hungnam, now part of North Korea]. The Japanese may have used this facility for making small quantities of heavy water. The Japanese plant was captured by Soviet troops at war's end, and some reports claim that the output of the Hungnam plant was collected every other month by Soviet submarines.

There are indications that Japan had a more sizable program than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb. After Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, the occupying US Army found five Japanese cyclotrons, which could be used to separate fissionable material from ordinary uranium. The Americans smashed the cyclotrons and dumped them into Tokyo Harbor.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/nuke-ww2.htm

America made a number of excuses about 'legitimate military targets' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those excuses were no more honest or realistic than the fairytale WMD's that Saddam was supposed to happen.

Hiroshima was:
the headquarters of the Fifth Division
the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army
a major troop assembly point
and a major military communications center

A 'logistics' centre in a city is not a realistic justification for a nuclear strike on a civilian city, any more than Israel firing into Lebanon's marketplaces was 'legitimate'.

Simply wrong, as pointed out above. And, as I said earlier, remember that there was no distinction at the time between a nuclear strike and fire bombing.

It is sad that America as a whole is even willing to listen to such claptrap out of the powers-that-be, much less tolerate or even endorse it.

The real reason the US dropped nuclear devices on Japanese cities, was that they had spent a hell of a lot of money on it, and wanted to see it in action. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatant women and children died in the name of American hubris.

Why would they want to do that? The simple explanation is they wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.


It's actually because Truman went on a bender.

LOL

Actually - no. You might want to review your Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

Wrong treaty. The Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" was first adopted in 1949. I believe you're looking for the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which were abrogated by all sides during WWII.

Attacking a military target in a city is one thing (like 'precision' Allied bombing in some German cities), but indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets are disallowed, as are attacks that might become indiscriminate.

Precision bombing? Like the firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka? (Which killed more people than the atomic bombs.)

You can't 'precision' bomb with a nuclear bomb. You can't hit the gun factory, and avoid innocent casualties.

Yet again, the atomic bomb was thought of as simply a large explosive.


I'm not talking about surgical strikes. We probably could have taken out the military leaders with fewer Japanese deaths than the 500,000+ currently attributable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Although, in a way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did something good. They all but guaranteed that no government will ever use a nuclear weapon again.

You're way off on the death tolls - try roughly 200,000.

How about a blockade around the islands? Japan had and has little (if any) fossil fuels. Eventually they would have to fight with bows and arrows, or surrender.

Was that option viable?

As I pointed out in my first post, it would have resulted in far greater numbers of civilian deaths.

Ah, so starving a nation to death would have been more humane than the Atomic attacks...

Who said anything about starving?

Nations have been blockaded before, without removing all 'humanitarian' avenues.

Who said anything about starving?

Nations have been blockaded before, without removing all 'humanitarian' avenues.

A US blockade of Japan would have meant that nothing would have gone to the home islands, including food. And besides, the surest way to defeat an Army is to starve it.

You're way off on the death tolls - try roughly 200,000.

I'm sorry, but there's this little thing called radiation poisoning. Even if you don't count that, the total combined casualities from just the initial destruction is over 200,000. Around 270,000, to be precise.

A US blockade of Japan would have meant that nothing would have gone to the home islands, including food.


Why? Because you say so?

What about blockading military vessels, but not blockading non-military vessels? (Yes - I realise that is illogical sounding, but I'm illustrating a point).

You can carry out sanctions on a nation, and still allow certain organisations (Red Cross being a favourite) access.


And besides, the surest way to defeat an Army is to starve it.

Actually, you might want to look at some military history. Sieges are often long, drawn-out events simply because it is amazing what people will eat, once food gets scarce.

The surest way to defeat an army is to kill them all, carefully and methodically. Starvation is neither.

Why? Because you say so?

What about blockading military vessels, but not blockading non-military vessels? (Yes - I realise that is illogical sounding, but I'm illustrating a point).

You can carry out sanctions on a nation, and still allow certain organisations (Red Cross being a favourite) access.

I'm going by the history of militaries carrying out blockades up until that point. The US had been systematically destroying Japan's merchant fleet throughout the war to the point that in 1945 Japan had resorted to using submarines to resupply troops. Why would a blockade on the home islands be any different?

Actually, you might want to look at some military history. Sieges are often long, drawn-out events simply because it is amazing what people will eat, once food gets scarce.

The surest way to defeat an army is to kill them all, carefully and methodically. Starvation is neither.

Ok, it might not be the quickest way to defeat an army, but when you're dealing with starving troops it's not going to be that hard to actually kill them when the real fighting starts.

America made a number of excuses about 'legitimate military targets' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those excuses were no more honest or realistic than the fairytale WMD's that Saddam was supposed to happen. A 'logistics' centre in a city is not a realistic justification for a nuclear strike on a civilian city, any more than Israel firing into Lebanon's marketplaces was 'legitimate'.


Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major industrial targets. There was great millitary pressure for Kyoto to be hit, as it was a major civilian and spiritual centre for the Japanese, but Truman resisted.

It is not unreasonable to think that bombing the crap out of citizens has never been 'okay', with or without treaties.

Yes, but the geneva conventions of the day had no bearing on decision to drop the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki. The morality of it is another question. And frankly it was the least worse choice in many people's opinion, most likely not one entered into lightly. I can't imagine Truman was all "LOL n00bz" when little boy was dropped.

And you paint an unrealistic picture of imperial japan. It's not exactly like it was a land of sunshine and kittens before the nasty old yankees poked them with a shitty stick into a war they just couldn't win. Just ask the chinese. Frankly I find it ironic that you, on the one hand seem to think that embargos and trade sanctions would have been a swimming end to world war II in the pacific, and yet on the other, see them as a legitimate casus belli when they were imposed for japan's shitty behaviour.

You can carry out sanctions on a nation, and still allow certain organisations (Red Cross being a favourite) access.


The US would have needed the consent of twenty five other nations for that. Which it would never of gotten, what with the japanese behaviour in the CBI theater.

The US would have needed the consent of twenty five other nations for that. Which it would never of gotten, what with the japanese behaviour in the CBI theater.

Somewhere there should be a papertrail showing that they tried, right? That unloading a new and devestating weapon technology wasn't the first option considered...?

The 'Trinity' testing had shown little real data, but it had shown that any city you dropped nuclear bombs on, would probably look like a barren wasteland of glass earth, broken through with incinerated bones of structures left standing. They knew that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be massive depopulations of civilians, and they knew that the cities would be post-armaggedon nightmares. They may not have known about the full effects of fallout, but that was just an added 'bonus' to the deathtoll.

They certainly knew what a city looked like after the first bomb was dropped, and yet no overture of peace was made then, either. The US didn't want peace, it wanted to use it's new toys, and wave it's new nuclear masculinity in the faces of the world.

Yes, but the geneva conventions of the day had no bearing on decision to drop the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki. The morality of it is another question. And frankly it was the least worse choice in many people's opinion, most likely not one entered into lightly. I can't imagine Truman was all "LOL n00bz" when little boy was dropped.

And you paint an unrealistic picture of imperial japan. It's not exactly like it was a land of sunshine and kittens before the nasty old yankees poked them with a shitty stick into a war they just couldn't win. Just ask the chinese. Frankly I find it ironic that you, on the one hand seem to think that embargos and trade sanctions would have been a swimming end to world war II in the pacific,...

I didn't say "embargos and trade sanctions would have been a swimming end to world war II in the pacific"... but we'll never know, because we didn't pursue ANY peace overtures.

I'm suggesting something that could have been tried, that might have worked, but that was immediately passed over unconsidered, in favour of a high body count.


...and yet on the other, see them as a legitimate casus belli when they were imposed for japan's shitty behaviour.

Nope, you lost me.

Somewhere there should be a papertrail showing that they tried, right? That unloading a new and devestating weapon technology wasn't the first option considered...?


Why should they try to do that? They had already commited themselves to doing quite the opposite. Something about "each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact". Unconditional surrender or nothing. No seperate peace.

In any case, I doubt the chinese would have said: "Sure, it's been just beastly for the poor japanese, you should go easy on them. Don't worry about us, we're all fine here now, everything's okay, just take your time getting a surrender. No rush or anything, it's not like the japanese are causing any problems in the bits of china they control."

Mind you, I am not actually surprised that everyone is second guessing this. It's probably one of the few times that the US hasn't shit all over its much weaker allies, so I understand the confusion.

Nope, you lost me.

Why do you think Japan attacked Pearl: because the US embassy staff was rude?

They attacked because of economic sanctions. Sanctions that were imposed because of japan's actions in china.

Care to prove that statement? I find it hard to believe that would be the main reason.

And I find it hard not to believe that would be - certainly, looming large - amongst the reasons for doing so.

Also, food for thought. Japanese civilian deaths: 600,000. Chinese civilian deaths: 7,000,000.

Why do you think Japan attacked Pearl: because of economic sanctions. Sanctions that were imposed because of japan's actions in china. Please, elaborate. Oil embargo, I trust..?

Why should they try to do that? They had already commited themselves to doing quite the opposite. Something about "each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact". Unconditional surrender or nothing. No seperate peace.

In any case, I doubt the chinese would have said: "Sure, it's been just beastly for the poor japanese, you should go easy on them. Don't worry about us, we're all fine here now, everything's okay, just take your time getting a surrender. No rush or anything, it's not like the japanese are causing any problems in the bits of china they control."

Mind you, I am not actually surprised that everyone is second guessing this. It's probably one of the few times that the US hasn't shit all over its much weaker allies, so I understand the confusion.

Curiously - the example you cite mentions both military AND economic means...

Maybe the Chinese wouldn't have been eager to support sanctions - but it wasn't even tried. You seem now to be arguing that the US murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians was okay, because China wanted revenge..?

Why do you think Japan attacked Pearl: because the US embassy staff was rude?

They attacked because of economic sanctions. Sanctions that were imposed because of japan's actions in china.

I disagree. I think you have misjudged 'the enemy'. Economic sanctions may have been a contributing factor, but embassy staff snubbed the emperor, among other dignitaries.

Add the idea of snubbing the emperor (with all that entails in Japan of the era), to the idea of deliberately continuing a practise of causing military and diplomatic brass-hats to 'lose face', and it isn't as trivial as you make it sound - and it certainly doesn't pale beside sanctions.

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.


So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

Way I heard it told somewhere, is that the Japanese were ready to surrender, but not unconditionally. America wanted an unconditional surrender.

Also, food for thought. Japanese civilian deaths: 600,000. Chinese civilian deaths: 7,000,000.

And... it was the Japanese civilians that did that, right?

Please, elaborate. Oil embargo, I trust..?

It was more than just oil. The proximate cause was the japanese invasion of indochina, but the dispute stretched back to the japanese invasion and occupation of parts of china.

And... it was the Japanese civilians that did that, right?

No, the point is that it was the quickest way to bring an end to the co-prosperity sphere, where a lot more civilians were dying.

I disagree. I think you have misjudged 'the enemy'. Economic sanctions may have been a contributing factor, but embassy staff snubbed the emperor, among other dignitaries.

Add the idea of snubbing the emperor (with all that entails in Japan of the era), to the idea of deliberately continuing a practise of causing military and diplomatic brass-hats to 'lose face', and it isn't as trivial as you make it sound - and it certainly doesn't pale beside sanctions.

Oh please, the US had been snubbing japan since Matthew Perry. The only reason why Pearl was attacked was because the imperial navy convinced everyone that further southern expansion to secure the dutch east indies would be impossible without neutralizing the US pacific fleet.

The army didn't even want to do it. The reasons centred around natural resources, not face.

Hey! Matthew Perry may suck as an actor... and he may even have been unemployed since Friends... but was WW2 really his fault?!?

No, the point is that it was the quickest way to bring an end to the co-prosperity sphere, where a lot more civilians were dying.

The Japanese army killed (or were killing) a load of Chinese civilians, thus it is okay to bomb civilians in Japan... seems to be the timbre of your argument.

Maybe killing a load of civlians was the quickest way - but I don't accept that that is a moral justification that should automatically be assumed as correct.

One could argue that 9/11 was the quickest way to focus attention on the plight of the Kurds in Iraq...

Oh please, the US had been snubbing japan since Matthew Perry. The only reason why Pearl was attacked was because the imperial navy convinced everyone that further southern expansion to secure the dutch east indies would be impossible without neutralizing the US pacific fleet.

The army didn't even want to do it. The reasons centred around natural resources, not face.

You seem very convinced. Certain enough to disregard all other arguments, no less.

I wish I had your certainty with issues that happened almost half a century before I was born.

You seem very convinced. Certain enough to disregard all other arguments, no less.

I wish I had your certainty with issues that happened almost half a century before I was born.


You sure sound like you do.

Look, I had a teacher (and a good friend) who was at Guadalcanal. He recently passed. He gave me several stories of his personal experiences with the Japanese during WW2. The most obvious and forthright was that the Japanese were committed to total war. That means no surrender. Fight to the death. Kill all combatants in their way, and treat any non combatants as sub-human, ie slaves.

Your posts have shown that you have no understanding for the evils that the US and Allies faced during that war. They were operating under that same assumption that Mr. Schreiber was, that the Japanese were NOT going to stop. Period.

Sorry, man, you need to do some more study and research, and understand that there are people in the world who want you dead. You can't reason with them, you can only make them dead first. Life is hard that way sometimes.

I'd also recommend (if you want some interesting reading) go back and find some National Geographics from 1935-1940. The one I am thinking of is about Manchukuo (Manchuria) and the Japanese occupation there. I think it was in 1937 or 1938... very telling of what was happening when we were still very much neutral...

It was oil and steel embargos that drove the Japanese to war with us.

Oh, and btw, Geneva convention and Israel... Hezbollah is a known terrorist group (Oh, wait, you probably disagree with that, too...) , and Israel is shooting at non-uniformed combatants... they can take them out and line them up against the wall and shoot them under the protocols of the convention.

Just remember this, we always write laws to fight the last war we fought, not the current or next one...

You sure sound like you do.

Look, I had a teacher (and a good friend) who was at Guadalcanal. He recently passed. He gave me several stories of his personal experiences with the Japanese during WW2. The most obvious and forthright was that the Japanese were committed to total war. That means no surrender. Fight to the death. Kill all combatants in their way, and treat any non combatants as sub-human, ie slaves.

Your posts have shown that you have no understanding for the evils that the US and Allies faced during that war. They were operating under that same assumption that Mr. Schreiber was, that the Japanese were NOT going to stop. Period.

Sorry, man, you need to do some more study and research, and understand that there are people in the world who want you dead. You can't reason with them, you can only make them dead first. Life is hard that way sometimes.

I'd also recommend (if you want some interesting reading) go back and find some National Geographics from 1935-1940. The one I am thinking of is about Manchukuo (Manchuria) and the Japanese occupation there. I think it was in 1937 or 1938... very telling of what was happening when we were still very much neutral...

It was oil and steel embargos that drove the Japanese to war with us.


I think you misunderestimate the main thrust of my argument. It doesn't matter if your enemy is a barbarian - you don't have to be a barbarian in return.

It doesn't matter that the Japanese military were bastards to the Chinese in this debate, because it isn't about how the Japanese treated the Chinese.. it is about how the US decided to treat the Japanese (civilians, at that).

"Everybody else was doing it" wasn't good enough for my mother, and it's not good enough for me.



Oh, and btw, Geneva convention and Israel... Hezbollah is a known terrorist group (Oh, wait, you probably disagree with that, too...) , and Israel is shooting at non-uniformed combatants... they can take them out and line them up against the wall and shoot them under the protocols of the convention.


I suggest you go back a few months and actually study Israel's actions in Lebanon. Indiscrimate firing on civilian targets isn't suddenly okay because you think 'terrorists' live in that country.

The Japanese army killed (or were killing) a load of Chinese civilians, thus it is okay to bomb civilians in Japan... seems to be the timbre of your argument.

Maybe killing a load of civlians was the quickest way - but I don't accept that that is a moral justification that should automatically be assumed as correct.

One could argue that 9/11 was the quickest way to focus attention on the plight of the Kurds in Iraq...

I didn't say okay. I said least worse choice. The chinese were allies, and as such the US had an obligation to assist and protect them in their conflict against the japanese empire.

Sometimes there are only bad choices.

you have to admit, however, the going would be tougher for the americans after each successive island McArthur came to. thered be hundreds more kamikazis and suicidal attackers and, island after island, this would have taken a great toll on US forces in the pacific theatre.

just imagine, though, with the propaganda messages that japan was sending to its civilians... japan told its civilians essentially that american forces would be defeated at all costs. so imagine if we landed on the japanese mainland... what would have the war cost for each side?

far greater than ending the war with 2 bombs.

You seem very convinced. Certain enough to disregard all other arguments, no less.

I wish I had your certainty with issues that happened almost half a century before I was born.

I'm certain of this. That in 1940, when the US declared the first of its economic sanctions and started to insult the japanese, they didn't bomb pearl (when the US was strategically weaker).

Why? Because there was a shit load of crack soviet troops sitting north of their border in Manchuko.

In fact, a year later, when the US froze their assets, they still swallowed their pride for six months until the Soviet troops had been pulled west to relieve Moscow.

Clearly, they could, and did swallow their pride when in suited them. So I don't find the 'face' argument for declaring war on the US convincing at all. (Not to mention that the army didn't even want to attack the US at all).

I'm sure it was brought up during discussion. But for those reasons, I don't see it as a major factor in their calculations at all. Especially since they were able to swallow their pride for so long before that.

I think you misunderestimate the main thrust of my argument. It doesn't matter if your enemy is a barbarian - you don't have to be a barbarian in return.

It doesn't matter that the Japanese military were bastards to the Chinese in this debate, because it isn't about how the Japanese treated the Chinese.. it is about how the US decided to treat the Japanese (civilians, at that).

"Everybody else was doing it" wasn't good enough for my mother, and it's not good enough for me.


August 1945: In the past six years there have been over 60,000,000 people violently killed. Half of those are allied civilians. Much of asia and europe is wrecked, entire nations are bankrupt and many areas are on the brink, if not actually experiencing, famine conditions. For the past three years streams of bombers, with increasing power, have laid incendary hell upon major urban centres. The axis powers have been operating death camps around the clock. And yet Japan still stands. The cost of a regular invasion (and don't forget the USSR will be involved) stands at millions of allied casualties, and possibly another six months at least of hard fighting. All the while, japanese atrocities will continue in their now isolated possesions in Indo-china and china. It's likely that you can end the war within a few weeks by dropping two atom bombs, gving the relief that you are bound by treaty to provide to your allies and ending the chance of further US casualties.

And you're suggesting that at that moment, Truman should have woken up and gone, "Hmm, maybe we should rethink this bombing civilians policy, after all, the excuse that everyone else is doing it never washed with my mommy".

I hardly think it is comparable to when your mother told you off for stealing a candy bar because your friend johnny did it.

Like I said, least worst choice.

How about supporting some internal faction, willing to fight against the military?

I am sure that by 1945 the average Japanese citizen was not very fond of the ruling military regime. Someone would have put up a fight.

Highly unlikely. The populace was beginning to tire of the war, for sure, and as I said earlier, would not have fought to the death. But at that time (1945) there was not nearly enough opposition in a strong enough position to effect any such change.

There was great millitary pressure for Kyoto to be hit, as it was a major civilian and spiritual centre for the Japanese, but Truman resisted.

Actually there was very little pressure to hit Kyoto precisely because it wasn't a major military target. However, it is of note that the Target Committee in Los Alamos presented first on it's original target listing, later to be dropped because there weren't significant military facilities.

Ah, so starving a nation to death would have been more humane than the Atomic attacks...
Who said anything about starving?

Nations have been blockaded before, without removing all 'humanitarian' avenues.

The blockade was already underway. There's a darned good reason why the aerial mining of Japanese harbors was called Operation Starvation (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n75/Htm/8000PopL6.htm)...

What about blockading military vessels, but not blockading non-military vessels? (Yes - I realise that is illogical sounding, but I'm illustrating a point).

You can carry out sanctions on a nation, and still allow certain organisations (Red Cross being a favourite) access.

The main thrusts of the blockaid already underway were: sinking Japanese shipping and mining Japanese harbors. In addition, Japanese graound transportation networks were heavily attacked. Malnutrition and yes even starvation continued to be problems even after the war ended and US food aid was being supplied.

As the war progressed in the Pacific Theater, Japan became increasingly vulnerable to food shortages. Our naval blockages, which preceded the occupation of each Japanese-held island, brought a virtual halt to supplemental food supplies. Even though the vast Japanese Empire encompassed some highly productive farm areas, there was no way, without naval support, to move rice and other essentials to the homeland.

As a final blow to the hungry Japanese, OPERATION STARVATION was put in place in the summer of 1945. The impact of starvation was devastating to the Japanese Empire. Food shortages became so acute that the government called on the civilian population to collect 2.5 million bushels of acorns to be converted into eating material. The average Japanese had to survive on a daily intake of 1680 calories, or about 78 percent of the minimum required for health and physical performance. Agricultural experts were projecting over 7 million deaths by starvation if Japan stayed at war through 1946.
http://www.airgroup4.com/food.htm

I'm sorry, but there's this little thing called radiation poisoning. Even if you don't count that, the total combined casualities from just the initial destruction is over 200,000. Around 270,000, to be precise.

Nope. Roughly 200,000 (or to be slightly more precise, 210,000) is the correct number, based on the figures given at the peace memorials in the two cities (140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki) which include radiation poisoning.

That unloading a new and devestating weapon technology wasn't the first option considered...?

Really, the question you need to be asking is why the British started bombing cities in Germany, as this is what lead directly to the use of the atomic bombs.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]They certainly knew what a city looked like after the first bomb was dropped, and yet no overture of peace was made then, either. The US didn't want peace, it wanted to use it's new toys, and wave it's new nuclear masculinity in the faces of the world.

Not really. The US didn't have that great of intelligence on the aftermath until they were able to occupy the cities.

I think you misunderestimate the main thrust of my argument. It doesn't matter if your enemy is a barbarian - you don't have to be a barbarian in return.

And I think you missed the trust of my argument as well. Let me put it this way: 200,000 civilians dead by atomic bomb, 7 million civilians dead by starvation, or unknown, but very large, civilian deaths from an invasion?

All the while, japanese atrocities will continue in their now isolated possesions in Indo-china and china. It's likely that you can end the war within a few weeks by dropping two atom bombs, gving the relief that you are bound by treaty to provide to your allies and ending the chance of further US casualties.


Yes, and it should be remembered that there were some 6.5 million Japanese, including 3.5 million servicemen overseas, at the time of the armistice. They were for the most part still fighting, still killing, still dying. And yet they stopped (except for isolated incidents) when the news of the unconditional surrender was relayed to them; disillusioned they may have been, but hugely relieved that the fighting had stopped.
And it's not as if Allied armies would have sat back and waited for a blockade to bring Japan to its knees - they would have kept up the pressure on those armies trapped overseas, with more bloodshed.
Trying to force Japan slowly into surrender would have prolonged suffering not only in Japan itself, but wherever the Japanese still occupied territory and fought on.

Not true. However, the surrenders were conditional on keeping some of their imperial colonies.



Incorrect. The surrender offer, made by the government of Japan and not some amorphous "group" as was suggested by someone else, was rejected on August 11th 1945. It contained only ONE request over and above the Potsdam proclamation. That being that the emporer be allowed to maintain his throne.

The US rejected this request, but then - of course - allowed him to maintain his throne after the surrender anyway,

So, yes, the bombs were unneccessary with regard to ending the war.


You can read the state department's reply to the surrender offer here. (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450811a.html)

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.

So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

Obviously, you didn't get far in school.

Incorrect. The surrender offer, made by the government of Japan and not some amorphous "group" as was suggested by someone else, was rejected on August 11th 1945. It contained only ONE request over and above the Potsdam proclamation. That being that the emporer be allowed to maintain his throne.

The US rejected this request, but then - of course - allowed him to maintain his throne after the surrender anyway,

So, yes, the bombs were unneccessary with regard to ending the war.


You can read the state department's reply to the surrender offer here. (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450811a.html)

That was in response to this surrender offer from August 10th, after both bombs had been dropped on August 6th and 9th. The suurender attempts I alluded to above were much earlier and well before the bombs had been dropped, primarily Naotake Sato's feelers in Russia in June 1945.

Like I said, least worst choice.

I don't think you get to use the 'least worse choice' argument, when you decided in advance you were going to limit the range of available choices to:

1) Brutal extermination of hundreds of thousands, and

2) See 1).

Not really. The US didn't have that great of intelligence on the aftermath until they were able to occupy the cities.


What they did know, even just from the Trinity tests, was the rough extent of the destruction.

Sure - fallout was a big scientific 'find', but by the time the second bomb was dropped, we had a pretty good idea what one did, and had seen it in action twice already.


And I think you missed the trust of my argument as well. Let me put it this way: 200,000 civilians dead by atomic bomb, 7 million civilians dead by starvation, or unknown, but very large, civilian deaths from an invasion?

Or maybe 7 million wouldn't have died. Maybe there would have been no invasion.

You are pitting the final deathtolls (which were a lot lower than might have been expected), against might-have-been data that you think might have been worse.

In other words, your justification for the extermination of huge swathes of civilians is: it could have been worse. By which token, of course, it is okay to murder 100 people.. because it isn't a thousand... right?

From my personal collection of genuine old-time 78-rpm records, for your listening pleasure, that all-time great hit, "Atomic Power", by the Buchanan Brothers [1946]:

Oh this world is at a tremble with its strength and mighty power
There sending up to heaven to get the brimstone fire
Take warning my dear brother, be careful how you plan
You're working with the power of God's own holy hand

[Refrain]
Atomic power, atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
Atomic power, atomic power
It was given by the mighty hand of God

You remember two great cities in a distant foreign land
When scorched from the face of earth the power of Japan
Be careful my dear brother, don't take away the joy
But use it for the good of man and never to destroy

Refrain

Hiroshima, Nagasaki paid a big price for their sins
When scorched from the face of earth their battles could not win
But on that day of judgment when comes a greater power
We will not know the minute and we'll not know the hour

Refrain

http://www.atomicplatters.com/more.php?id=33_0_1_0_M

I didn't say "embargos and trade sanctions would have been a swimming end to world war II in the pacific"... but we'll never know, because we didn't pursue ANY peace overtures.

I'm suggesting something that could have been tried, that might have worked, but that was immediately passed over unconsidered, in favour of a high body count..

So the bombing is okay as long as we try something else. Cool :D

I think you misunderestimate the main thrust of my argument. It doesn't matter if your enemy is a barbarian - you don't have to be a barbarian in return.

It doesn't matter that the Japanese military were bastards to the Chinese in this debate, because it isn't about how the Japanese treated the Chinese.. it is about how the US decided to treat the Japanese (civilians, at that).

"Everybody else was doing it" wasn't good enough for my mother, and it's not good enough for me.




I suggest you go back a few months and actually study Israel's actions in Lebanon. Indiscrimate firing on civilian targets isn't suddenly okay because you think 'terrorists' live in that country.

Misunderestimate?

In other words, your justification for the extermination of huge swathes of civilians is: it could have been worse. By which token, of course, it is okay to murder 100 people.. because it isn't a thousand... right?

Hmm, yes, but not exactly. To him, and most people, it comes down to a clear choice of which is the worst evil. Conveniently there are only two choices: One, invade Japan, killing in the millions. Two, use nuclear bombs, killing in hundreds of thousands. That's it!

But I'm not convinced about this dichotomy. The argument goes that Japan would never, ever have surrendered without the use of nuclear weapons or a bloody US invasion. How do we know this? They DID surrender, so clearly they DID have conditions under which they would surrender.

What were those conditions? I'm guessing, losing the war, and time. (But maybe they had a "losing the war to very efficient explosives" subclause. Har.)

I'm also guessing that when it came down to JAPAN's clear choice, they had two options: One, surrender to the Soviets. Two, surrender to the USA.

The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 8, effective August 9. So when you come down to it, which really caused Japan to surrender, the prospect of the mass-rape and looting and subsequent enslavement in Siberia at the hands of the commies... or a pair of weapons which, although individually powerful, did not do quantitatively more damage than was already being done to the Japanese by US conventional and fire bombing?

So to conclude I doubt the "they wouldna surrendered" justification; they did, and I doubt they would have needed a US invasion to do so.

So the bombing is okay as long as we try something else. Cool :D

No, still not necessarily 'okay'.

But, at least you can honestly claim something as a 'last resort' if you have actually looked for another resort.

Misunderestimate?

Google it.

I've never been afraid of showing my sense of humour.

No, still not necessarily 'okay'.

But, at least you can honestly claim something as a 'last resort' if you have actually looked for another resort.

Technically, as long as there was no resort taken after it...

Technically, as long as there was no resort taken after it...

Then 'first' resort, or 'only' resort might be fitting, but 'last' resort is stretching it.

Hmm, yes, but not exactly. To him, and most people, it comes down to a clear choice of which is the worst evil. Conveniently there are only two choices: One, invade Japan, killing in the millions. Two, use nuclear bombs, killing in hundreds of thousands. That's it!

But I'm not convinced about this dichotomy. The argument goes that Japan would never, ever have surrendered without the use of nuclear weapons or a bloody US invasion. How do we know this? They DID surrender, so clearly they DID have conditions under which they would surrender.

What were those conditions? I'm guessing, losing the war, and time. (But maybe they had a "losing the war to very efficient explosives" subclause. Har.)

I'm also guessing that when it came down to JAPAN's clear choice, they had two options: One, surrender to the Soviets. Two, surrender to the USA.

The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 8, effective August 9. So when you come down to it, which really caused Japan to surrender, the prospect of the mass-rape and looting and subsequent enslavement in Siberia at the hands of the commies... or a pair of weapons which, although individually powerful, did not do quantitatively more damage than was already being done to the Japanese by US conventional and fire bombing?

So to conclude I doubt the "they wouldna surrendered" justification; they did, and I doubt they would have needed a US invasion to do so.

Exactly the argument I make... we hold up what we did, and we justify it with what we say 'they' would have done.

Not based on anything other than speculation... and, maybe, a handful of 'wanting-it-to-be-that-way'.

Then 'first' resort, or 'only' resort might be fitting, but 'last' resort is stretching it.

IIIII'm just sayin', what with 'last' being defined the way it is...

IIIII'm just sayin', what with 'last' being defined the way it is...

But, it does really suggest a 'first' option that is not the same as the 'last'. Otherwise, 'first and 'last' are pretty meaningless.

But, it does really suggest a 'first' option that is not the same as the 'last'. Otherwise, 'first and 'last' are pretty meaningless.

Mebbe. *shrug* In a two car race, one person finishes just behind first, while the other is second to last.

I don't think you get to use the 'least worse choice' argument, when you decided in advance you were going to limit the range of available choices to:

1) Brutal extermination of hundreds of thousands, and

2) See 1).

Fine. You win. You are right. We should have taken Okinawa, then surrendered to the japanese, then gone home and let them continue doing whatever the fuck they wanted in Malaya, Indochina, china, korea &c. until the USSR finally slaughtered them all.

Sure, a few extra tens of millions of civilians would have died, and there would have been deprivation and famine in that part of the world years after, but you know what, it would have been worth it just to get people to shut up about what was really, on the scale of things, a rather trivial incident when compared to the rest of the war as a whole.

While we are at it, how dare the western allies cross the Rhine! Do you know how many civilian deaths the british caused in the low countries and western germany? The optimal thing to do would have been to force the germans out of france, and then just declare an embargo until the germans capitulated.

In fact, the UK should be paying repairations at this very moment for the suffering it caused the innocent german civilians. What was it thinking?

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour. Invading the soveriegn territory of another nation like that. A clear violation of International Law. Hang your head in shame tommy.

damn. its hard to argue for one side when someone comes along once in a while and makes the other side's arguments bunk... :D

Aw, does my political incorrectness bother you? Will anyone really be offended if I say Jap instead of Japanese?

I didn't think so.

yes people will be offended, hopefully including the moderators

Who said anything about starving?

Nations have been blockaded before, without removing all 'humanitarian' avenues.

like the ten-year illegal no-fly zones the US and UK imposed on Iraq between the two invasions?

Or maybe 7 million wouldn't have died. Maybe there would have been no invasion.

You are pitting the final deathtolls (which were a lot lower than might have been expected), against might-have-been data that you think might have been worse.

In other words, your justification for the extermination of huge swathes of civilians is: it could have been worse. By which token, of course, it is okay to murder 100 people.. because it isn't a thousand... right?
Well, when the decision to drop the bombs was made that was all they had to work with wasn't it waht might be. We try a seige which might kill 7mil, an invasion which might kill even more since we most logically assume that the Japanese will fight as hard for their homeland as they have previously over the other islands we have taken from them since we don't seem to have all that much reason to assume they wouldn't without beneffit of hindsight, a bombing which will most likely kill fewer people then many of our previous bombings, but work as a statment do to it being a bombing of a single bomb, we can sit around and hope for the best, i.e. the Japanese all of a sudden surrendering unconditionally for reasons completly outside our control that the leadership of the time had no way of predicting, or some a completly hypolthetical fifth option no one criticizing the decision has yet put forward. Of those five options the last is untell established irrelavent, the fourth is not even close to being a valid stratagy by any stretch of the immagination, and of the remaining three the nukes with out any benefit of hindsight seem the most logical option, for causing the fewest all around deaths.
I wonder if we had instead choosen to try the starvation method and Japan had, after 7 million people had died from starvation and malnutriton, surrendered if we would today be debating about how the bombs would have been more humane and should have "at least been tried" because they would "only" have "hypothetically" killed 200,000-300,000 people, and "maybe could have killed less." In other words your argument that a seige would have been more humain is just as much built on assumptions as the argument that it would have killed more, if not more so see on how most experts seem to suport the oposeing view.

The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 8, effective August 9. So when you come down to it, which really caused Japan to surrender, the prospect of the mass-rape and looting and subsequent enslavement in Siberia at the hands of the commies... or a pair of weapons which, although individually powerful, did not do quantitatively more damage than was already being done to the Japanese by US conventional and fire bombing?

So to conclude I doubt the "they wouldna surrendered" justification; they did, and I doubt they would have needed a US invasion to do so.

They didn't surrender after the potsdam declaration. What reason is there to suppose they were going to surrender because the soviets declared war.

Clearly they were in a better position to rebuff a soviet invasion of the home islands than a American one - what with the soviet paucity of naval power - and they knew that. So your position is that the US didn't need to invade, even though the japanese were prepared to resist said invasion with all possible force, because the soviet's "invasion" would make them surrender, is nonsensical.

Yah. I know, August storm and all that, but most of that fighting happened after they surrendered to the United Nations anyway. And it still doesn't address the weak soviet logistics for an extended campaign against the home islands.

Exactly the argument I make... we hold up what we did, and we justify it with what we say 'they' would have done. Kind of like how you hold up what we did, and you condemn it with what you say 'we' might have done that would worked better.

Not based on anything other than speculation... and, maybe, a handful of 'wanting-it-to-be-that-way'.

Like your argument that an embargo would have caused fewer casualties, despite most experts on the subject saying the exact opposite?

Fine. You win. You are right. We should have taken Okinawa, then surrendered to the japanese, then gone home and let them continue doing whatever the fuck they wanted in Malaya, Indochina, china, korea &c. until the USSR finally slaughtered them all.

Sure, a few extra tens of millions of civilians would have died, and there would have been deprivation and famine in that part of the world years after, but you know what, it would have been worth it just to get people to shut up about what was really, on the scale of things, a rather trivial incident when compared to the rest of the war as a whole.

While we are at it, how dare the western allies cross the Rhine! Do you know how many civilian deaths the british caused in the low countries and western germany? The optimal thing to do would have been to force the germans out of france, and then just declare an embargo until the germans capitulated.

In fact, the UK should be paying repairations at this very moment for the suffering it caused the innocent german civilians. What was it thinking?

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour. Invading the soveriegn territory of another nation like that. A clear violation of International Law. Hang your head in shame tommy.

This almost resembles satire.

You seem to be able to easily pass of dropping nuclear devices on cities as 'a rather trivial incident'. Okay - in terms of how many dead in one city, versus how many dead in the whole war... perhaps it is.

But in terms of the only time nuclear weapons have been used?

Or, in terms of per-hit kills, or per-second kills?

How trivial would it be for an enemy power to drop a nuclear device on your own hometown?

How trivial would it be for an enemy power to drop a nuclear device on your own hometown?

Relative to engaging in total war with my country?

Kind of like how you hold up what we did, and you condemn it with what you say 'we' might have done that would worked better.


Strawman. I didn't say anything would have worked better. I have said that maybe we should have looked for alternatives, before being the first and only power to use nuclear technology in anger.

Alternatives might not have worked at all, let alone better. But we don't know, because we had decided on a policy of obliteration, and didn't really look anywhere else.


Like your argument that an embargo would have caused fewer casualties, despite most experts on the subject saying the exact opposite?

Another strawman. I didn't even say an embargo would cause less casualties. I think it's a possible alternative to turning cities to glass and bones, though.


The weakness of the argument 'for' nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is that it's very best argument can never be more than "Yeah? Well, you can't fly, either".

Relative to engaging in total war with my country?

It wasn't aimed at you, but... sure.

The point is - if someone drops a bomb on Seattle, maybe it will scare me, and piss me off - but maybe I'm not intimately affected. If someone bombs Moscow, maybe I'm even less connected.

Some people feel an easy facility for shrugging of the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they don't 'mean anything' to them - to those people.

It is easy to talk statistics about other people. I'm trying to draw attention to the idea that every single civilian in Hiroshima or Nagasaki was 'me', to his or her self.

...every single civilian in Hiroshima or Nagasaki was 'me', to his or her self.

I realize that's a perfectly legitimate sentence, but I still find it amusingly phrased.

They didn't surrender after the potsdam declaration. What reason is there to suppose they were going to surrender because the soviets declared war.

Maybe because the Soviets had about 1 soldier for every 2 Japanese men, women and children. And unlike those who signed Potsdam, they had a history of rape and pillage when they wound up conquering places.

Clearly they were in a better position to rebuff a soviet invasion of the home islands than a American one - what with the soviet paucity of naval power - and they knew that.

Soviet naval power was mostly irrelevant; they had the resources and not very far to go, while Japan's military and economy was basically crushed by then.

So your position is that the US didn't need to invade, even though the japanese were prepared to resist said invasion with all possible force, because the soviet's "invasion" would make them surrender, is nonsensical.

Japan also knew that the US may well have not had the stomach for the horrific losses they would have incurred (and given out) during an invasion. The same cannot be said for the Soviets.

And it still doesn't address the weak soviet logistics for an extended campaign against the home islands.

In the end, its politics that ends wars (or starts them). The Japanese had no real logistics or shot at self defense by that time anyway.

I realize that's a perfectly legitimate sentence, but I still find it amusingly phrased.

I aim to please. (I think). ;)

Strawman. I didn't say anything would have worked better. I have said that maybe we should have looked for alternatives, before being the first and only power to use nuclear technology in anger.

Alternatives might not have worked at all, let alone better. But we don't know, because we had decided on a policy of obliteration, and didn't really look anywhere else.That is of course ignoring the fact that as Daistallia 2104 pointed out we did have embargos and such in place. You are assuming that they never considered it, and that they didn't dismiss it because they felt it wouldn't work or would have cause more deaths in teh long run, an essesment most experts on the matter today seem to agree with.



Another strawman. I didn't even say an embargo would cause less casualties. I think it's a possible alternative to turning cities to glass and bones, though.Why, would one want to chose the alternative that would cause more deaths?


The weakness of the argument 'for' nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is that it's very best argument can never be more than "Yeah? Well, you can't fly, either".I'm not even sure what that means, but frankly it sounds to be about as much of a strwman as either of my two points. The argument for the bombing that I have always seen is that it caused fewer deaths than either of the other two options that always come up in said discusions, seige and invasion, would have, based on estimates made with the full benefit of hindsight. The argument against always seems to be that those methods would have killed fewer people, despite the disagrements of teh experst in that field of study, or that there was some other option they should have been able to think of with out any of our benefits of hindsight that for some reason is never specified.

It wasn't aimed at you, but... sure.

The point is - if someone drops a bomb on Seattle, maybe it will scare me, and piss me off - but maybe I'm not intimately affected. If someone bombs Moscow, maybe I'm even less connected.

Some people feel an easy facility for shrugging of the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they don't 'mean anything' to them - to those people.

It is easy to talk statistics about other people. I'm trying to draw attention to the idea that every single civilian in Hiroshima or Nagasaki was 'me', to his or her self.As was every soilder and civilian who would have died from either an embargo to force surrender or an invasion of the home islands, as such shouldn't the goal be to take the option that would result in the fewest over all deaths? And seeing as how with the benefit of hindsight it is believed that both of those would have caused more deaths in the long run....

Maybe because the Soviets had about 1 soldier for every 2 Japanese men, women and children. And unlike those who signed Potsdam, they had a history of rape and pillage when they wound up conquering places.



Soviet naval power was mostly irrelevant; they had the resources and not very far to go, while Japan's military and economy was basically crushed by then.



Japan also knew that the US may well have not had the stomach for the horrific losses they would have incurred (and given out) during an invasion. The same cannot be said for the Soviets.



In the end, its politics that ends wars (or starts them). The Japanese had no real logistics or shot at self defense by that time anyway.

And on that the US millitary should have just assumed that the Japanese would have surrendered as soon as the Soviets got involved and made no efforts of their own to bring the war to an end?

As was every soilder and civilian who would have died from either an embargo to force surrender or an invasion of the home islands, as such shouldn't the goal be to take the option that would result in the fewest over all deaths? And seeing as how with the benefit of hindsight it is believed that both of those would have caused more deaths in the long run....

Why?

Why is least deaths important?

If least deaths was our guiding light, a conditional surrender would have been preferable to any of the massacre options suggested.

Ah, Hiroshima... had a brief fling with a lovely girl there...

*nostalgic sigh*

Why, would one want to chose the alternative that would cause more deaths?


You mean: why would one choose to drop nuclear devices on women and children, when conditional surrender was on the table?

But in terms of the only time nuclear weapons have been used?

Are we arguing whether or not it was acceptable, under the conditions of world war II, to target civilian populations if it met justifiable war aims or the ethics of deploying novel weapon systems?

Or, in terms of per-hit kills, or per-second kills?

So it would have been more acceptable to slowly starve more civilians to death, or possibly let the USSR starve more civilians to death with the fun addition of rape gangs, because there would be less deaths per second or hits? That makes no sense.

Maybe you should look at the films from saipan before you finally decide that idea of dropping atomic bombs to bring a quick end to the war was the most ill concieved idea ever.

How trivial would it be for an enemy power to drop a nuclear device on your own hometown?

Certianly more trivial than watching the imperial japanese army rape my female relatives to death before carting me off for human experiments or death in a slave labour camp. Good job none of that was going on in August 1945.

You mean: why would one choose to drop nuclear devices on women and children, when conditional surrender was on the table?

The japanese were well aware of acceptable surrender terms well before august. They chose not to give them.

Maybe because the Soviets had about 1 soldier for every 2 Japanese men, women and children. And unlike those who signed Potsdam, they had a history of rape and pillage when they wound up conquering places.


Soviet naval power was mostly irrelevant; they had the resources and not very far to go, while Japan's military and economy was basically crushed by then.


Japan also knew that the US may well have not had the stomach for the horrific losses they would have incurred (and given out) during an invasion. The same cannot be said for the Soviets.


I am not saying that the soviets couldn't have won. (Though given their lack of boats, lack of amphibious capability and the fact that japan is a chain of islands it probably would have taken a great deal of effort)*. I am saying that because the japanese were prepared to dig in a fight an enemy that comparitvely far stronger in that theater, it is extremely unlikely that they would have surrendered just because the soviets threatened them.

You have to remember that the japanese thought that the US troops would behave exactly like the soviets acutally would have as well. Look at what happened at sapain. So expected brutality doesn't factor into the decision.

I don't think you can really hand your hat on the idea that they believed the Americans had no stomach for a fight either. Not with the whole being driven back across the pacific.

*Probably would have been a mixed blessing. We should have let them tie themselves up in japan, and then kicked their asses back to moscow where they belonged.

Okay, people - FACT time.

1: Japan's government (as opposed to a FEW politicians) was NOT seriously considering surrendering AT ALL to ANYONE. We know this from the cabinet minutes and documents that survived the war.

2: The Japanese government had created a counter strategy to invasion by the US, called Operation Ketsugo. This plan would have caused literally millions of Japanese casualties, in an attempt to cause sufficient casualties to an invasion force to make conquest of the home islands non-viable. Whether this would have succeeded against the forces in Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet is something of a question, but the result would most certainly have been the near-depopulation of Kyushu, and likely of Honshu had Olympic succeeded and Coronet been launched.

3: There is little or no chance that the Japnese people would not have followed the near-suicidal orders contained in Ketsugo to the letter. We know this because we got a foretatste of what to expect on Okinawa, where US forces had to fight not only the Japanese military but also the island's population. Between suicides, futile attacks on US soldiers and said soldiers' understandably hostile reaction to such things as grenade attacks carried out while trying to negotiate the surrender of caves full of civilians, as amny as half of the island's population may have been killed.
The US suffered heavy casualties in all phases of the operation. This led to a reevaluation of Operation Downfall (the combined Operations Olympic and Coronet). While the reevaluation did not kill the plans, projected casualties were so high that we are still today issuing Purple Heart Medals struck for those operations - over 500 000 were made.

4: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. Hiroshima was headquarters for the Imperial Japanese Navy, Nagasaki was a major intelligence and logistics control node for the Imperial Japanese Army. By the standards used at that time (which are the only standards that matter) both were entirely legitimate targets.

5: Even after Nagasaki, the government of Japan did not intend to surrender. They believed the US had no more Atomic Weapons, and that the defeat of the US invasion would force the US to accept a peace without an occupation (on the first point, they were in fact correct - the next US Atom Bomb was not prepared until 1946). They were overruled by Emperor Hirohito, who instructed them to accept unconditional surrender.

The use of the Atomic Weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki served many purposes. It saved lives on both sides of the conflict, set a chilling effect upon an expansionist Soviet Union, and ensured US power in the Pacific region, as well as ending an expensive and bloody war, and ensuring that the US' word, given at the Potsdam Declarations, was kept. As he was to do a number of times in his Presidency, Truman made the correct decision, despite it being the harder one.

Sorry for digging up on an older comment, but I think this is still relevant.

I think you misunderestimate the main thrust of my argument. It doesn't matter if your enemy is a barbarian - you don't have to be a barbarian in return.

It doesn't matter that the Japanese military were bastards to the Chinese in this debate, because it isn't about how the Japanese treated the Chinese.. it is about how the US decided to treat the Japanese (civilians, at that).

"Everybody else was doing it" wasn't good enough for my mother, and it's not good enough for me.

First off, it's misunderstand. I understand your argument very well. I think it is you who are mistaken about what I was trying to say.

When you are dealing with "Total War", which is what WW2 had become for us, then all options become available.

Let me give you a very quick example... one I want you to really ponder before replying.

Say we are standing face to face. I punch you in the face. I repeat my actions, over and over again. If you try to get away, I pull you back and hit you again, and possibly kick you for good measure. You scream for the police. The police don't come immediately. You realize that I am wearing a sword, but I haven't used it yet (and you know that I am a master swordsman). You realize you have a gun, and that I am better or at least your equal in pugilism. You see that I am getting tired, so I am reaching for my sword. Do you pull your gun? If you do, then if I don't stop, do you shoot me?

This is as close of an example of what Total War means on a very personal level. Remember, there are no cops... or at best, USA act as the cops (we came to the rescue of China, Britain, the Soviets and others in WW2) and we were not sure that Japan wasn't going to be using THEIR nukes at any time (we knew then and know now that they were in development, remember we had cracked their codes, as well as the Germans' codes)

Oh, one last thing. When it comes to war, you best become barbaric, or the barbarians will hand you your ass. Civility ends when the fight becomes for real. If you can't understand that, then you don't understand Evolution and survival of the fittest.

My mom taught me fair play and be nice, too... she also taught me that if a bully hit me, to knock his head in. Seemed to work pretty well... after the first time, the bullies left me alone... how about you? Did they ever quit messing with you?



-talk about Israel-

I suggest you go back a few months and actually study Israel's actions in Lebanon. Indiscrimate firing on civilian targets isn't suddenly okay because you think 'terrorists' live in that country.

Precision guided munitions, and shelling into known enemy emplacements from which they were receiving fire from is not "indiscriminate". The only civilians that were in the way were the ones Hezb'Allah was using to hide behind so that bleeders like you would go "boo-hoo, mean old Israel" . Hey, to change fronts slightly, how about telling me how Israel is responsible for those 50+ rockets launched from Gaza into Israel by Hamas and they haven't taken any hard military action against them yet???

Yeah, I did study that action extremely closely. I have friends in Lebanon and Israel both. I watch that very closely and don't take stuff at face value from any of the news sources. And I ask questions of my friends on the ground... just so you know.

I still say, if you disarm the arab populations around Israel, you get peace. You disarm the Israelis, you get Holocaust part Deux.

Vocabulary List:
Hezb'Allah = Party of God
Mein Kaumpf = Jihad

I am not saying that the soviets couldn't have won. (Though given their lack of boats, lack of amphibious capability and the fact that japan is a chain of islands it probably would have taken a great deal of effort)*. I am saying that because the japanese were prepared to dig in a fight an enemy that comparitvely far stronger in that theater, it is extremely unlikely that they would have surrendered just because the soviets threatened them.


It's no more implausible than the idea that they surrendered just because the Americans threatened them. I posit that it was the combination of both; not any specific weapon use. Again, strategic bombing is strategic bombing, whether it's done efficiently with one big bomb or less efficiently with thousands of smaller ones.

You have to remember that the japanese thought that the US troops would behave exactly like the soviets acutally would have as well. Look at what happened at sapain. So expected brutality doesn't factor into the decision.

I don't think you can really hand your hat on the idea that they believed the Americans had no stomach for a fight either. Not with the whole being driven back across the pacific.

Why not? They began the war under that very pretense.

The Pacific Campaign hardly touched on the US itself, aside from its military. The Japanese were always operating under the (generally correct) belief that the US is reluctant to take huge casualties. At least, more reluctant than, say, the Soviets. They also operated under the assumption that the Soviets could afford those casualties whereas the US might not.

The Sovs were huge, they were close, they were known and proved brutal conquerors, and the Japanese surrendered after it was shown that they were going to declare war. I think you may be too easily dismissing the purely psychological affect of all this.

Nice post but one point.
This is as close of an example of what Total War means on a very personal level. Remember, there are no cops... or at best, USA act as the cops (we came to the rescue of China, Britain, the Soviets and others in WW2) and we were not sure that Japan wasn't going to be using THEIR nukes at any time (we knew then and know now that they were in development, remember we had cracked their codes, as well as the Germans' codes)
The USA wasn't and isn't the world police. the USA was staying out of the fight because we (the world) went through one World War and wasn't quite ready to get involved with another.

we were supporting our allies with supplies, and "unoffically" with troops. (people 'volunteered' to go, and the US did nothing to stop em.) but officially, we were sitting out the war. Pearl Harbor brought us into it.

so we didn't go in to Rescue anyone, we went in to help our allies when we found ourselves dragged into this war and those allies did help us with Japan.

Nice post but one point.

The USA wasn't and isn't the world police. the USA was staying out of the fight because we (the world) went through one World War and wasn't quite ready to get involved with another.

we were supporting our allies with supplies, and "unoffically" with troops. (people 'volunteered' to go, and the US did nothing to stop em.) but officially, we were sitting out the war. Pearl Harbor brought us into it.

so we didn't go in to Rescue anyone, we went in to help our allies when we found ourselves dragged into this war and those allies did help us with Japan.

Lend Lease, Flying Tigers (who were even recruited right off our flight lines), others (old and tired, forget right this minute and too lazy to look up)

We knew after mid 1940 that we were eventually going to be in the war. Our economy was ramping to a wartime economy from then... we simply sat back and waited for the opportunity... and then got caught at Pearl.

We were trying to make diplomacy and trade embargos work (i.e. trying to talk to the bully) then they whacked us so we whomped back...

So in that regard, I do agree with you that we didn't go in in the first instant, but we were sending support, aid, and fighting men well before we declared war.

Why?

Why is least deaths important?

If least deaths was our guiding light, a conditional surrender would have been preferable to any of the massacre options suggested.

The Japanese were not open to a surrender, as noted by their outright rejection of the Potsdam decloration

If they had been more open to a conditional surrender, they would have said that they disagreed with Potsdam but wanted to discuss furhter.

Despite all the legitimate arguments on both sides, in the end I am glad the decision to drop the bombs was made.

If the world had not had the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demonstrate the horror of these weapons, it is entierly likely that some American or Soviet leader, at some point of tension in the near future, might have decided "Why not?"

Surely, the result we got was better?

Lend Lease, Flying Tigers (who were even recruited right off our flight lines), others (old and tired, forget right this minute and too lazy to look up)

We knew after mid 1940 that we were eventually going to be in the war.

No, that's really not true. FDR's government believed it was necessary and inevitable for the US to become involved in Europe, but he had almost NO support for that in the Congress - and very little among the American people, who saw it as a war between two former enemies. While most Americans backed Britain, and there was no stigma for those who went to fight, there was no popular drive to enter the war. Had Japan not attacked Pearl AND Germany declared war on the US, the chances were very good that the US would have sat the war out - and made a sh*tload of money from the war trade.

Our economy was ramping to a wartime economy from then... we simply sat back and waited for the opportunity... and then got caught at Pearl.

We were trying to make diplomacy and trade embargos work (i.e. trying to talk to the bully) then they whacked us so we whomped back...

So in that regard, I do agree with you that we didn't go in in the first instant, but we were sending support, aid, and fighting men well before we declared war.

We were sending support and aid to our acknowledged ally, Nationalist China, from the start. Everything sent to Britain was to be paid for - if not right away. The war in China was seen as much more our business than Europe was.

And our economy in 1940 was nowhere near, nor especially advancing towards, wartime levels. It WAS growing, under the impetus of war sales to Britain and Germany (and yes, we sold a LOT to Germany, primarily through third-party deals), but it was not functioning in wartime overdrive.

Despite all the legitimate arguments on both sides, in the end I am glad the decision to drop the bombs was made.

If the world had not had the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demonstrate the horror of these weapons, it is entierly likely that some American or Soviet leader, at some point of tension in the near future, might have decided "Why not?"

Surely, the result we got was better?

Perhaps.However,humanity has a nasty habit of not learning from it's past mistakes.

Every time we have one of these threads, I get the feeling a ton of the posters here are living in la-la land.

WWII was an extreme circumstance that demanded extreme action. If the US had delayed action or waited to drop the bombs, then we would've just extended the existing blockade leading to more starvation. We also would've given Japanese subs more time to hit US ships and then cost the lives of Americans (people whom Truman had to protect). Remember, the USS INDIANAPOLIS was sunk within a week of Hiroshima. There was still fighting going on right up until the bitter end.

Dropping the bombs probably saved lives in the end. If you don't believe that, look at Brittain's blockade of Germany in WWI.

Some may speculate today in hindsight about Japan being near surrender, but it was impossible for the US Gov to get a clear picture on that back in 1945.

In the end, Truman had to drop the bomb. It led to less civilian casualties than any other option likely would've.

Perhaps.However,humanity has a nasty habit of not learning from it's past mistakes.

Well, no nukes have been used since then, so I'd posit that humanity has been a pretty capable steward of nuclear technology.

I dread to think of what might have happened had we not used the bombs -- not with regards to Japan but with regards later, with the USSR. Hiroshima and Nagasaki set in human minds a concrete precedent as to the absolute destructive power of nuclear weapons, and even with that precedent in place we came dangerously close to nuclear war again later. I wonder if we would've crossed that line if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't proven to mankind that these were not just really big explosive devices.

The Japanese were not open to a surrender, as noted by their outright rejection of the Potsdam decloration

If they had been more open to a conditional surrender, they would have said that they disagreed with Potsdam but wanted to discuss furhter.

That the Japanese were not open to one suggestion doesn't mean they had closed borders to others.

If the US had lost a war, and stated that surrender would ONLY be considered if... for example... the Constitution remained the guiding document of all 'domestic' policy - would they even consider an offer that suggested the Constitution be scrapped?

Dropping the bombs probably saved lives in the end. If you don't believe that, look at Brittain's blockade of Germany in WWI.


People keep resorting to this excuse... but, only when we are discussing Japan.

How many of the same people would agree with levelling Israel with nuclear devices? After all - it would probably save lives in the end.

No, that's really not true. FDR's government believed it was necessary and inevitable for the US to become involved in Europe, but he had almost NO support for that in the Congress - and very little among the American people, who saw it as a war between two former enemies. While most Americans backed Britain, and there was no stigma for those who went to fight, there was no popular drive to enter the war. Had Japan not attacked Pearl AND Germany declared war on the US, the chances were very good that the US would have sat the war out - and made a sh*tload of money from the war trade.



We were sending support and aid to our acknowledged ally, Nationalist China, from the start. Everything sent to Britain was to be paid for - if not right away. The war in China was seen as much more our business than Europe was.

And our economy in 1940 was nowhere near, nor especially advancing towards, wartime levels. It WAS growing, under the impetus of war sales to Britain and Germany (and yes, we sold a LOT to Germany, primarily through third-party deals), but it was not functioning in wartime overdrive.

Um, don't know where you get that that isn't true. Mine is from extensive questioning of friends and relatives WHO LIVED THROUGH IT.

I had a lovely conversation about this very subject with my mother in law (aged 86) after reading some of this... her take on it was that a lot of Americans just wanted it to go away, true... but that we really had no choice and were eventually going to have to get into it. IE resignation...

The economy was indeed ramping for war ever since '39 , don't have the figures right here, but I suggest you look at the growth rates in the economy up til and from there. And look at the sectors that were growing. It was war based.

W/O WW2, US would have struggled along for at least another 5 - 10 years in a depressionary economy.

People keep resorting to this excuse... but, only when we are discussing Japan.

How many of the same people would agree with levelling Israel with nuclear devices? After all - it would probably save lives in the end.

Sorry, not buying your premise.

Difference is that Japan was the Aggressor Country. Israel is not. (Now I am sure you are going to go into full anti-semetic pro-arab apologist mode and tell me how Israel started everything, and the poor Arabs did nothing... just stop lying before you even start. You cannot prove it, because it is false.)

Arabs started it in 49-50, Israel won.
Arabs started it in 67. Israel won.
Arabs started it in 72. Israel won.

I am not saying that Israel is perfect, because they are not. I'm saying it's a different scenario.

Different wars, different issues. Dumb.

Sorry, not buying your premise.

Difference is that Japan was the Aggressor Country. Israel is not. (Now I am sure you are going to go into full anti-semetic pro-arab apologist mode and tell me how Israel started everything, and the poor Arabs did nothing... just stop lying before you even start. You cannot prove it, because it is false.)

Arabs started it in 49-50, Israel won.
Arabs started it in 67. Israel won.
Arabs started it in 72. Israel won.

I am not saying that Israel is perfect, because they are not. I'm saying it's a different scenario.

Different wars, different issues. Dumb.

Arabs started it.... okay, let's get on the same page. What was the Arab reaction to Israel during World War Two?

How do you climb a horse that high? You need special brething equipment up there?

I didn't say anything about who 'started' the Arab/Israel conflict. Just that the whole thing could have been brought to a quick close, probably with less deaths... with the use of the 'nuclear' solution people seem so fond of in the japan scenario.

One little note, my friend... since I hadn't mentioned anything about "...how Israel started everything, and the poor Arabs did nothing...", your accusations of me "lying" are baseless, and nothing more than an ad hominem attack. You might want to think before you type, in future.

Lend Lease, Flying Tigers (who were even recruited right off our flight lines), others (old and tired, forget right this minute and too lazy to look up)

[QUOTE]We knew after mid 1940 that we were eventually going to be in the war. Our economy was ramping to a wartime economy from then... we simply sat back and waited for the opportunity... and then got caught at Pearl.



When you say "we" here I assume that you mean the military and FDR and his government and other leaders. Most people still believed that we should not be involved in war except to "loan" England items that FDR knew we could never expect back.

Some food for tought:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." ~ Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." ~Admiral Leahy

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." ~ Herbert Hoover

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." ~Norman Cousins

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." ~ New York Times

"...if [the Japanese] knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that [conventional] bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." ~General Spaatz

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." ~Brigadier General Carter Clarke

Um, don't know where you get that that isn't true. Mine is from extensive questioning of friends and relatives WHO LIVED THROUGH IT.

And who had their own POV and who's recollections are suspect after fifty years. I prefer to go on documentary evidence.

I've no doubt your family members are utterly honest and completely trustworthy. So were mine. That doesn't stop them being limited in what they saw or wrong about details. Personal accounts are important to the historical record, but when the contradict the records of the time, I know which I'll weigh more heavily.


The economy was indeed ramping for war ever since '39 , don't have the figures right here, but I suggest you look at the growth rates in the economy up til and from there. And look at the sectors that were growing. It was war based.


Yes, the improvement was war-based, but it was not a war ECONOMY. The US was profiting mightily from the war in Europe, selling weapons and materiel to all possible buyers. This, combined with New Deal programs that were hitting top gear, caused a level of economic growth that the US has never equalled outside of wartime.

Post-'41, the US went into a true COMMAND DRIVEN WAR ECONOMY. This is both a quantitative and QUALITATIVELY different organisation, actually appearing more like the 1919-1924 Russian "War Communism" than anything usually thought of as a free market. By and large, companies made and did what the government told them to, and long term economic goals and consequences be damned (you have to have a short term for the long term to have meaning). This lasted until 1945 (when Truman wisely began dismantling the war infrastructure - a process interrupted by Korea and Vietnam. Some aspects of this (referred to as the "Military-Industrial Complex" and warned of by President Eisenhower) remain to this day.


W/O WW2, US would have struggled along for at least another 5 - 10 years in a depressionary economy.

Oh, absolutely true. The New Deal and the reform of the Stock Market was the long term solution, but the damage was severe.

Hiroshima was selected for the following reasons:

1. It had a considerable industrial capacity
2. It housed extensive military supply depots
3. It was a military rally point for Japanese forces
4. It was the location of the HQ and camps of the 5th Division
5. It was never the target for any extensive conventional bombing campaigns
6. It lacked having any POW camps

Nagasaki was a target because:

1. It had a considerable industrial capacity
2. It had a military seaport
3. It was a naval ordinance industrial center
4. It was never the target for any extensive conventional bombing campaigns

Dropping te nuclear bomb was best option for unconditional surrendor because the other option was invasion, and the Japanese were willing to fight to the death with old tehcnologys (kamikazee and suicide attacks) and new technologys, (jet aircraft) and all of this would have caused millions of casualtys on both sides. This rally does not compare to taking out 200,000 Japanese civilians.

Every time we have one of these threads, I get the feeling a ton of the posters here are living in la-la land.
Is so, were Eisenhower, Macarthur, Admiral Leahy, General Spaatz, and General Clarke, men who would know far more about military matter that either you or Truman, living in la-la land as well?

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.

They did? News to me as I have studied the Pacific Campaign indepth.

So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

Learn the culture of Japan in the 30s and 40s and then ask that question.

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.


So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

WHAT?First atomic bomb dropped-August 6,1945
Second atomic bomb dropped-August 9,1945
Japan Surrenders-August 14,1945

Hiroshima was selected for the following reasons:

1. It had a considerable industrial capacity
2. It housed extensive military supply depots
3. It was a military rally point for Japanese forces
4. It was the location of the HQ and camps of the 5th Division
5. It was never the target for any extensive conventional bombing campaigns
6. It lacked having any POW camps

And according to a BBC documentary that I have, the civilians called it an Army city for everywhere they turned, there were soldiers everywhere.

Nagasaki was a target because:

1. It had a considerable industrial capacity
2. It had a military seaport
3. It was a naval ordinance industrial center
4. It was never the target for any extensive conventional bombing campaigns

yep.

WHAT?First atomic bomb dropped-August 6,1945
Second atomic bomb dropped-August 9,1945
Japan Surrenders-August 14,1945

Cease-fire was August 15 while the surrender took place on September 2.

WHAT?First atomic bomb dropped-August 6,1945
Second atomic bomb dropped-August 9,1945
Japan Surrenders-August 14,1945
Allow me to repost a quote I did earlier.

"The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." ~ The New York Times

Allow me to repost a quote I did earlier.

"The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." ~ The New York Times

And Japan Rejected that too.

I just find it hilarious that all you people defending the bombings think you know more than the people who ran the US military during World War II. You remind me of the current day Neocons who reject advice from generals about Iraq.

I just find it hilarious that all you people defending the bombings think you know more than the people who ran the US military during World War II. You remind me of the current day Neocons who reject advice from generals about Iraq.

Alright, seeing how is u know so much more then us "neocons" why don't u enlighten us with ur vastly superior knowledge on the subject and i want more then just qoutes taken from a newspaper or something. and secondly, Iraq is nothing compared to WWII. If ur gonna compare, try and pick two similar wars, cuz, uh i do believe that is the idea behind comparison.

Alright, seeing how is u know so much more then us "neocons" why don't u enlighten us with ur vastly superior knowledge on the subject and i want more then just qoutes taken from a newspaper or something. and secondly, Iraq is nothing compared to WWII. If ur gonna compare, try and pick two similar wars, cuz, uh i do believe that is the idea behind comparison.
The kind of post I could only expect from a fellow Texan.

Those quotes aren’t just from newspapers. In fact, many of them are from books either written by or authorized by those people. Though I wonder why being from a newspaper would invalidate them.
You are right about the wars being very different, but the arrogance of civilian politicians who know nothing of military matters remains the same.

FDR was a good wartime leader because he left the military to the generals and admirals.
Unfortunately since him, we’ve had a number of terrible wartime leaders who not only don’t listen to the generals, but marginalize the ones who disagree with them.

Allow me to repost a quote I did earlier.

"The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." ~ The New York Times

Doesnt matter.This person essentially said that the two countries were not anymore at war when the bomb dropped,which is ridiculous.I cant believe some people are trying to defend his post,which anyone can see is simply incorrect history.

That the Japanese were not open to one suggestion doesn't mean they had closed borders to others.
The other 'option' the Japanese were open to at the time was more of the same. The Showa Emperor had sent a working group to Moscow to get the Russians to intercede to stop the war, but the Show Emperor's instructions were that the condition was that he would retain the throne and the throne would retain the full powers as set under the Meiji Constitution.

I've heard this over and over again in these threads, but you guys keep forgetting that 'Keep the Emperor' wasn't keeping the toothless symbol we have now but an Emperor with absolute powers (Akin perhaps to Germany surrendering, but the NAZI party allowed to retain leadership with the fuhrer keeping his full powers unchanged).

Hell, even AFTER the decision about the Emperor was made and SCAP asked for the government of Japan to draft a new constitution, they handed over the Meiji Constitution with some cosmetic changes (this is what led to America writing Japan's current constitution within a week).

Nope, the agreed framework among the allies was un-conditional surrender and that's what Japan was told.

The real reason the US dropped nuclear devices on Japanese cities, was that they had spent a hell of a lot of money on it, and wanted to see it in action. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatant women and children died in the name of American hubris.

This is the most true, accurate and succint response I must agree with. We learnt a lot from those test, probably more than from the thousands of nuclear tests the U.S. did since then.

A brief history into Japanese-US relations.

In the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 Japan trounced the Russians. This completely shocked the west - that an upstart asian nation could defeat a powerful an established military such as Russia's. The war can even be considered the last straw on the camels back in terms of the Russian revolution, such was the disatisfaction with the Tzar.

This sentiment towards Japan was indicative of the underlying racism of the west towards Asia as a whole. Japan picked up on these sentiments and it fueled Japan's resentment that it felt it had been treated as the defeated and not the victor in the peace negotiations after the war. These negotiations were headed by Roosevelt who at the start of the negotiations was percieved to be an unbiased broker for the negotiations. However, by the end Japan felt had it had been slighted, and insulted by the USA. This led to increasingly hostile relations between the two coutries until Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941.

The USA being shocked that Japan would pre-emptively strike at the US homeland without so much as a declaration of war was just a wee bit pissed. And from the little bit of military history that I do know was getting their arses handed to them by the Japanese until the battle of midway. This further fueled anti-japanese sentiments in the USA. It's easier to feel compasionate to your enemy when your winning, but not so much the other way round. Such virulent anti-japanese sentiment is evidenced by the production of 'slap-a-jap' adverts for war bonds. I've never really found an equivalent of such propaganda in WWII-Europe towards European enemies.

So round about the time of WWII, there was large amounts of racism still going round. It would have probably been very hard to find someone who would tell you a Japanese life was the equal of an American or European life. Hence the decision to use this new bomb on the Japanese to try and force them into surrender. What's more, the American's didn't really have a full idea all the entirety of what an atom bomb does. They wouldn't know the full effects for years afterwards. To them it was just another type of bomb, and if bombing these two minor cities could save American lives then so be it.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the results of racism, national self-interest and Truman's self-interest as a politician (a large scale invasion at the cost of many american lives probably won't get you elected), and ignorance.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the results of racism, national self-interest and Truman's self-interest as a politician (a large scale invasion at the cost of many american lives probably won't get you elected), and ignorance.And that bolded point alone backs up the decision to drop the bombs. Truman is responsible as the Commander in Chief to those men and if he has an option to win without getting them killed, he is obligated to do it.

The biggest determinant towards the US decision was the defenses put up by the Japanese at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. US leaders saw the Japanese fight to nearly the last man with a refusal to surrender. They feared it would be similar during an invasion of Japan. The US suffered tens of thousands of casualties during each invasion and those were tiny islands. Imagine what invading Japan would do in terms of casualties.

And that bolded point alone backs up the decision to drop the bombs. Truman is responsible as the Commander in Chief to those men and if he has an option to win without getting them killed, he is obligated to do it.

The biggest determinant towards the US decision was the defenses put up by the Japanese at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. US leaders saw the Japanese fight to nearly the last man with a refusal to surrender. They feared it would be similar during an invasion of Japan. The US suffered tens of thousands of casualties during each invasion and those were tiny islands. Imagine what invading Japan would do in terms of casualties.To an extent it does, but not completely.

It could be argued that Roosevelt's decision to have the navy attack ANY ship bearing an axis flag without warning or help to surviors. With such a strategy being used by the Americans, it would have doubtlessly been easy to vilify the Americans as people would kill you without a second - whether or not you had surrendered. The Japanese could also claim that the Americans would even kill their own who had surrendered (thousands of Allied prisoners of war were killed when the Japanese-operated passenger ship that was carrying them was attacked). So you could argue that the USA shot themselves in the foot there.

One question is why wasn't the USA prepared to accept a conditional surrender? Why did the Americans ask the Russians to invade the Japanese colonies three months after VE day (which would be the day the American's bombed Nagasaki)? Why did the US invite the USSR to invade teh Japanese colonies only to invade and hold the South of the Korean Peninsula?

The US had firebombed in excess of 50 other Japanese cities to the ground previously to the use of the nuclear bombs.

The US also withdrew it's demand that the Emperor be tried for war crimes.

I do no believe dropping the atom bomb was necessary to obtain a surrender out of Japan. Nor does Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. He believes it was the Soviet invasion that brought about Japan's surrender.

I am very cynical about America's use of the bomb.

(sorry, I ran out steam and can't pull all my points together. So I've littered the end of this post with a few sentences that I wanted to structure paragrapghs around).

Forum is FINALLY working again, so...

One question is why wasn't the USA prepared to accept a conditional surrender?
Two reasons, one is political pressure, both internal and external. We stated that unconditional surrender was the goal and we would accept nothing less. This was confirmed any number of times at various conferences between the Allied Powers, for the US to suddenly say, "Well, now that we think about it, conditional is A-OK, with us" would not have gone down well with both the American public and said allies (while the US bore the brunt of the Pacific War, a number of other countries were involved too and would have probably been pissed). The second reason, as I stated above, the condition that the Japanese were asking for was the retention of the Imperial throne with full powers as stated by the Meiji Constitution, which was absolute, or pretty close to it. Again, this would have been akin to leaving the NAZIs in power in Germany with the Fuhrer retaining his position and all powers granted there unto. The Showa Emperor was not a helpless puppet, he welded some considerable power and influence.

Why did the Americans ask the Russians to invade the Japanese colonies three months after VE day (which would be the day the American's bombed Nagasaki)?
Actually the Russian invasion came early. The USSR had been asked to declare war on Japan and join in as soon as it could get troops (which had been pulled away to the Western front of the war) back into the Eastern front. The USSR was able to move the troops away due to a non-aggression pact that Japan and the USSR had signed, and both sides honored it until the Russian invasion (Mainly because it freed troops from both sides to fight elsewhere). Hiroshima shocked the hell out of Stalin and made him commit a week earlier than planned. But the timing was set up long before the bombs were dropped.

Why did the US invite the USSR to invade teh Japanese colonies only to invade and hold the South of the Korean Peninsula?
They didn't... precisely. The Koreas had already been split at a previous conference between the USSR and the Americans. The USSR wanted the North secured to keep Japan from coming in behind and America was taking control over all other former colonies. The original idea was a larger version of Germany, with the USSR retaining administrative control over one area and America the other. Eventually after the war, the country would hold free elections and be reunited. Sadly the Cold War, as with Germany, intervened and we now have that lovely mess.

The US had firebombed in excess of 50 other Japanese cities to the ground previously to the use of the nuclear bombs.
Yes, and Japan still fought on. Tokyo alone killed far more than the atomic bombs, heck, I've seen pictures of what was left in some places, and yet Japan fought on. This isn't to say that the bombing and the reasons for ending the war were anything as simple as IDF is presenting, there's a lot of complexities involved that both sides in these threads tend to ignore, but the bombs were the catalyst.

The US also withdrew it's demand that the Emperor be tried for war crimes.
That was more MacArthur than anything else. He made the decision to shield the Emperor Showa from the Tokyo Tribunals, including coaching the very men he was trying. He almost didn't get away with it as pressure in Washington was intense, but public opinion and the need to get Japan to shape up and become a Cold-War ally finally saved the Emperor from facing the tribunals.

I do no believe dropping the atom bomb was necessary to obtain a surrender out of Japan. Nor does Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. He believes it was the Soviet invasion that brought about Japan's surrender.
I'm sorry, but the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal of the time, the Grand Steward, and the Emperor Showa disagree with Hasegawa-sensei. The Soviet invasion was a piece of the puzzle, but not the whole of it. It DID force the Emperor Showa to admit that the Soviets would not broker a peace deal between Japan and the US and allow Japan to surrender with the condition of retaining the throne.

Thanks for taking the time to reply NEVRUN, especially in such depth. You seem to have a deeper knowledge of the Pacific war than me. I'm European, so I was never introduced to the Pacific war at school or college. I'm also not much of a military history buff. Not to imply that you are or are not though.

Hence most of my knowledge comes from research I do as I write the post. Yay for unrestricted access to www.jstor.org at home. :D The only think I could wish for is that the articles are stored in text format and not as images.

You make a good point about conditional surrender. However, this goes to show just how brutal WWII was, with the allies unprepared to accept conditional surrender.

The Russians came early? I thought Roosevelt, at Yalta, requested that they attack Japan 3 months after VE day. May 7th to August 9th is about three months.

*nods to your point about the division of Korea*

My point about the firebombing is that Japan had face such large scale destruction of many other cities, why would large scale destruction of two more force them into surrender? This is why I think the Soviet invasion was more important. Japan would have to fight on another front, and also the Russian's invasion was fairly swift, unlike the the US invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

I seem to remember reading that the after the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima the US navy recommended blockading Japan until they surrendered. This seems to me to be the better plan. You still get the desired effect to a Russian invasion later on up to help persuade Japan to surrender. Besides, any additional uses of nuclear bombs were to only permitted under direct authorisation of Truman. It just makes me think there was a lot more to bombing these cites than obtaining a quick surrender. But I haven't the time to delve into an indepth study at the moment. I have essays to be writing. :(

What about my brief history of Japanese-American relations. Does that seem fairly accurate to you?

Anyway, thanks for the post. It was an interesting read.

Thanks for taking the time to reply NEVRUN, especially in such depth. You seem to have a deeper knowledge of the Pacific war than me. I'm European, so I was never introduced to the Pacific war at school or college. I'm also not much of a military history buff. Not to imply that you are or are not though.
*grins* No worries, Japan, its history, culture, language, and everything else, has been a particular interest of mine for quite some time.

Hence most of my knowledge comes from research I do as I write the post. Yay for unrestricted access to www.jstor.org at home. :D The only think I could wish for is that the articles are stored in text format and not as images.
If you have the time and interest, I highly recommend "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herpert P. Bix and "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" by John W. Dower as very good texts on this time period from the Japanese side of things. I, too, wish they were online as it would make these threads MUCH easier.

You make a good point about conditional surrender. However, this goes to show just how brutal WWII was, with the allies unprepared to accept conditional surrender.
Total Victory was the stated goal, it's hard to get a population behind you then suddenly change your mind about things. As it were though, it DID leave the US free hand to radically shape Japan after the war (with mixed results due to a number of things) which led to the Japan that we know of today.

The Russians came early? I thought Roosevelt, at Yalta, requested that they attack Japan 3 months after VE day. May 7th to August 9th is about three months.
Indeed yes, however President Truman and Stalin had agreed upon a date one week later than the Hiroshima bombing for the Soviet advance. The bombing did shock Stalin enough to start a week early.

My point about the firebombing is that Japan had face such large scale destruction of many other cities, why would large scale destruction of two more force them into surrender? This is why I think the Soviet invasion was more important. Japan would have to fight on another front, and also the Russian's invasion was fairly swift, unlike the the US invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Ah, ok, this is going to get a little complicated. The bombings, strictly speaking, did NOT cause Japan's capitulation. They were, however, the catalyst of it. The same with the Soviet invasions (which I am not knocking, mind you, they played an important role). To understand this, one must first know that for the Emperor Showa (Hirohito), there was no higher purpose than to preserve the Imperial Throne. The national policy (as it was known in Japan), was just that; everything was subservient to the survival of the Imperial line, everything. Japan itself as a state and the people within it were important only as long as the throne endured. The fear of the Imperial Palace at the time of the bombings was twofold, one was the increasing loss of prestige that the common people afforded the Emperor. Towards the end of the war, acts of les'majesty were becoming more and more common. There was a very, very great fear that the people would hold the Emperor responsible for their suffering, or even worse, rebel and depose the Emperor and the Imperial line. The second fear was the loss of the Imperial Regalia (The Sword, Mirror, and Jewl) held at the Grand Shine of Ize.

The problem facing the cabinet and the Imperial Palace was how to end the war without attaching any blame to the Emperor for Japan's defeat or misfortunes. The bombing at Hiroshima was, as noted by the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, a gift from the heavens. It was the perfect excuse. Here was a devastating new weapon that the Allies had. Its existence, and its ability to wipe whole cities off the map, could be used to throw the Emperor into a humane light, suddenly the call for surrender was not admitting defeat, but was a graceful bow out of the war by a humane leader who did not wish to see the death of the whole of the human race (Yes, this IS what the Showa Emperor said in his speech). The Soviet invasion clenched the deal, as the communists would more than likely would have hanged the Emperor.

To put it simply, the bombs were the face saving measure needed by the Emperor to declare peace (along with some fast talking by his advisers). They were not, as often stated, the direct cause for the end of the war, but I cannot see the Showa Emperor agreeing to surrender without them, at least so soon.

As to the second point, the reason why the Soviets advanced so damn quickly is that in China, that army had been fighting for years and was both tired and low on supplies. The islands that were captured were never meant to hold off attacks. Okinawa and Iwo Jima, by contrast, were garrisoned and planned as the last bastions of defense of the home islands.

I seem to remember reading that the after the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima the US navy recommended blockading Japan until they surrendered. This seems to me to be the better plan. You still get the desired effect to a Russian invasion later on up to help persuade Japan to surrender.
We were already blockading them. Nothing was moving in or out (and Japan didn't have much to move with. Most of its merchant marine were sitting on the bottom of the Pacific). And no, the horrors of starvation would have claimed many, many more lives than the bombings ever did (or will). I've talked with people from that time as well as researched it, the average diet of the Japanese was so poor that an entire generation shrank compared to their parents. Grave of the Fireflies shows what life was like during that time, I highly recommend it (but watch it with a box of tissues).

Besides, any additional uses of nuclear bombs were to only permitted under direct authorisation of Truman. It just makes me think there was a lot more to bombing these cites than obtaining a quick surrender. But I haven't the time to delve into an indepth study at the moment. I have essays to be writing. :(
Well, one, ONLY the president can authorize nuclear attacks, that's the case even now. And two, we sortta didn't have anything left. Truman was bluffing.

What about my brief history of Japanese-American relations. Does that seem fairly accurate to you?
Japanese-Russian one? Fairly good. I would add though that both the Japanese and the Russians are scared of each other for something that happened centuries ago though. Russia has a tradition of fearing attack from the East and Japan has the fear of attack across the Sea of Japan. Why? Both countries were invaded from though directions by the Mongols.

Anyway, thanks for the post. It was an interesting read.
You're very welcome, I hope you find this one enlightening as well.

You're very welcome, I hope you find this one enlightening as well.
Very interesting. :)

NERVUN strikes again. Thanks once again my friend for your insightful posting.

Neo-Undelia, you also need to understand the culture of the time in order to put alot of things into perspective about the circumstances surrounding the bomb.

NERVUN strikes again. Thanks once again my friend for your insightful posting.

Neo-Undelia, you also need to understand the culture of the time in order to put alot of things into perspective about the circumstances surrounding the bomb.

*nods*
which was very, VERY different than the culture today... and I am referring to both USA and Japan.

NERVUN did a fine job of summing up the complexity of the bombings, thereby reducing any post I had in mind to pure repetition. I would also recommend Grave of the Fireflies. While it is an anime, it is perhaps more gut wrenching than Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List combined (and I've been to Auschwitz and that's gut wrenching enough). I think what makes Grave of the Fireflies so powerful is its perspective. Amazing film. Also, I would recommend the film Hiroshima. I have only seen it on cable, not on DVD (I am sure it is though). It is a Canadian film, I think, and shows both perspectives that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the more interesting elements that the film proposes is that the Emperor was going to surrender, but many in the military were considering a coup d'etat. Instead, the head of the Japanese forces/commanding general (sorry I forget his name) and the person the conspirators needed to carry off the coup took his own life rather than let the Emperor be overthrown. Interesting how close we still came to having to invade Japan.

Oh, I know someone mentioned earlier... the anti-Japanese sentiment had nothing to do with getting our tails handed to us in the early part of the war. It was what they did to our POW's and other nations POW's, what they did at Nanjing, Manilla and almost every other city they occupied. There was nothing honorable in their sadism...

The kind of post I could only expect from a fellow Texan.

Those quotes aren’t just from newspapers. In fact, many of them are from books either written by or authorized by those people. Though I wonder why being from a newspaper would invalidate them.
You are right about the wars being very different, but the arrogance of civilian politicians who know nothing of military matters remains the same.

FDR was a good wartime leader because he left the military to the generals and admirals.
Unfortunately since him, we’ve had a number of terrible wartime leaders who not only don’t listen to the generals, but marginalize the ones who disagree with them.

Let's not get personal.

Newspapers do have a tendency to take many, many things out of context, particlularly MacArthur's conciliatory attitude. He simply wanted to save the monarchy, he being a bit aristorcratic himself, and somewhat of a prima donna (to put it mildly). He wanted the glory of brokering a deal; further, MacArthur knew the realities of what was going on. He had to dislodge nearly half a million Japanese from the Phillipines. Plus, he was not a fan of Truman... but one needs only to look at the Korean conflict to see that clash. And I agree, Truman was an awful wartime leader for Korea alone...

NERVUN strikes again. Thanks once again my friend for your insightful posting.
A regular, modern day Machiveli.
Neo-Undelia, you also need to understand the culture of the time in order to put alot of things into perspective about the circumstances surrounding the bomb.
I understand enough, and I also understand that political convenience is never an excuse for the murder of thousands of civilians.
Newspapers do have a tendency to take many, many things out of context,
Yeah, can't trust that darn libral media.

A regular, modern day Machiveli.
'Fraid not, interested student is all.

That and I just got back from a self-imposed forum vacation and this was the first thread I ran into. :p

The Soviet invasion was a piece of the puzzle, but not the whole of it. It DID force the Emperor Showa to admit that the Soviets would not broker a peace deal between Japan and the US and allow Japan to surrender with the condition of retaining the throne.

While the point has really already been made, I had to quote this and reemphasize the Soviet attack was not the key to the surrender of Japan.

Some people talk about August Storm like it was some sort of second Stalingrad...bad enough that many marginalize the Anglo-American contribution to the European theater, now they try to do the same to the Pacific theatre, where it was nothing but Anglo-American and Chinese forces for nearly four years.

Russian forces totaled at least eighty divisions with 1.5 million men, over five thousand tanks (including 3,700 T-34s), over 28,000 artillery pieces and 4,300 aircraft (including 3,700 first line combat aircraft).

The Kwantung Army had over six hundred thousand men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types, they only had 50 first line aircraft).

However, the Japanese forces were far below authorized strength, and most of their heavy military equipment and best military units had been transferred to the Pacific front over previous three years. As of 1945 the Japanese army in Manchuria contained a large number of raw recruits. The result was that the Kwantung Army had essentially been reduced to a light infantry counter-insurgency force with limited mobility and experience. In the event, Japanese forces were no match for the mechanized Red Army, with its vastly superior tanks, artillery, officers, and tactics.

Japan had it's "B" team whooped by Russia's "A" team. I'm sure nobody in the Japanese military leadership had any problems seeing this fact.

I myself very much doubt the Russians could have amassed enough landing vessels to make any significant gains on the Home Islands. They had difficulties with Kuril and Sakhalin, and those were a far cry from Hokkaido. Not to mention they still had a lot of work to do on the mainland consolidating their gains.

Even if they could have gotten enough ships together, it was nearly 200 miles from the nearest point on Russian territory to the nearest point on Hokkaido. Farther if one wants to utilize actual port facilities. While not as fortified as Hitler's Atlantic Wall, 200 miles is a much more difficult task for an amphibious landing in strength than the 20-30 miles the Allies had to travel on D-Day.

Concievably the Russians could have amassed their force on Sakhalin, significantly reducing the travel distance. This would have taken a LOT of time, however, and I am doubtful the island had the necessary infastructure to support such a move. Moreover, it would reveal their plans to the Japanese, even to the point of knowing the invasion window, and allow for harrassment by air, sea and shore artillery of the transport fleet even before the actual invasion.

In short, I do not think that any Russian attempt to invade the home islands would have been successful, unless significant contributions to the operation were made by other nations. They had air-superiority, true, but I suspect casualty rates would have been high enough to ensure that any forces that did manage to gain ground would be unable to extend those gains to encompass the whole of Hokkaido.

The Japanese were probably not afraid of the Russians taking their country...they were more likely worried that their country would be the central battlefield of the next war...between Russia and America. They were right in this respect, since Korea did become that battlefield only five years later...although Russia was not directly involved.

As stated before...the Russian invasion was a clincher in that in ended any Japanese hopes for a negotiated peace with America brokered by the Soviets. The overall threat of Soviet military force to the Home Islands, while certainly considered, was likely minimal in relation to the threat from the Western Allies.

While the point has really already been made, I had to quote this and reemphasize the Soviet attack was not the key to the surrender of Japan.

Some people talk about August Storm like it was some sort of second Stalingrad...bad enough that many marginalize the Anglo-American contribution to the European theater, now they try to do the same to the Pacific theatre, where it was nothing but Anglo-American and Chinese forces for nearly four years.



Japan had it's "B" team whooped by Russia's "A" team. I'm sure nobody in the Japanese military leadership had any problems seeing this fact.

I myself very much doubt the Russians could have amassed enough landing vessels to make any significant gains on the Home Islands. They had difficulties with Kuril and Sakhalin, and those were a far cry from Hokkaido. Not to mention they still had a lot of work to do on the mainland consolidating their gains.

Even if they could have gotten enough ships together, it was nearly 200 miles from the nearest point on Russian territory to the nearest point on Hokkaido. Farther if one wants to utilize actual port facilities. While not as fortified as Hitler's Atlantic Wall, 200 miles is a much more difficult task for an amphibious landing in strength than the 20-30 miles the Allies had to travel on D-Day.

Concievably the Russians could have amassed their force on Sakhalin, significantly reducing the travel distance. This would have taken a LOT of time, however, and I am doubtful the island had the necessary infastructure to support such a move. Moreover, it would reveal their plans to the Japanese, even to the point of knowing the invasion window, and allow for harrassment by air, sea and shore artillery of the transport fleet even before the actual invasion.

In short, I do not think that any Russian attempt to invade the home islands would have been successful, unless significant contributions to the operation were made by other nations. They had air-superiority, true, but I suspect casualty rates would have been high enough to ensure that any forces that did manage to gain ground would be unable to extend those gains to encompass the whole of Hokkaido.

The Japanese were probably not afraid of the Russians taking their country...they were more likely worried that their country would be the central battlefield of the next war...between Russia and America. They were right in this respect, since Korea did become that battlefield only five years later...although Russia was not directly involved.

As stated before...the Russian invasion was a clincher in that in ended any Japanese hopes for a negotiated peace with America brokered by the Soviets. The overall threat of Soviet military force to the Home Islands, while certainly considered, was likely minimal in relation to the threat from the Western Allies.

One of the more radical theories I have seen proposed was that a Russian invasion of the home islands would have forced a settlement not unlike Europe and created a divided Japan. I'm not sure how it would have played out (WWII/Cold War history is certainly not my field of expertise), but I doubt anyone would have suffered a North/South Japan...

One of the more radical theories I have seen proposed was that a Russian invasion of the home islands would have forced a settlement not unlike Europe and created a divided Japan. I'm not sure how it would have played out (WWII/Cold War history is certainly not my field of expertise), but I doubt anyone would have suffered a North/South Japan...
Depends, before the militarization period and for a short time after the war, Japan had an extremely active and vocal Communist party (which was one of the reasons the Imperial Household Ministry and the Cabinet was worried about a Soviet invasion). Even now the JCP still has a few seats in the Diet, though it has been steadily losing power for decades.

*nods*
which was very, VERY different than the culture today... and I am referring to both USA and Japan.

So very true.

A regular, modern day Machiveli.

Or someone who has a better understanding than you do.

I understand enough, and I also understand that political convenience is never an excuse for the murder of thousands of civilians.

Even though it saved millions of Japanese lives as well as Americans?

Yeah, can't trust that darn libral media.

Some of us do not trust any portion of the press. We may listen to it but in order to get even part of the story, one must try to piece together the facts.

Even though it saved millions of Japanese lives as well as Americans?
The top military officials of the time seem to have thought that neither an invasion nor the use of nuclear weapons was necessary. Look at what Leahy had to say especially.

The top military officials of the time seem to have thought that neither an invasion nor the use of nuclear weapons was necessary. Look at what Leahy had to say especially.

Take a look at the Commanders in charge in Japan.

The top military officials of the time seem to have thought that neither an invasion nor the use of nuclear weapons was necessary. Look at what Leahy had to say especially.

"I think the term is perhaps inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, gifts from the gods. This way we don't have to say that we quit the war because of domestic circumstances. I've long been advocating control of our crisis, but neither from fear of an enemy attack nor because of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. The main reason is my anxiety over the domestic situation. So, it is rather fortunate that we can now control matters without revealing the domestic situation." - Yonai Mitsumasa, Admiral and Prime Minister of Japan: August 12, 1945

"They [The atomic bombs and Soviet entry] are useful... elements for making things go smoothly." Marquis Koichi Kido, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal

"The main motive behind my decision at that time was that if we... did not act, the Japanese race would perish and I would be unable to protect my loyal subjects." - The Emperor Showa

As I have said, the Japanese disagree with you.

"I think the term is perhaps inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, gifts from the gods. This way we don't have to say that we quit the war because of domestic circumstances. I've long been advocating control of our crisis, but neither from fear of an enemy attack nor because of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. The main reason is my anxiety over the domestic situation. So, it is rather fortunate that we can now control matters without revealing the domestic situation." - Yonai Mitsumasa, Admiral and Prime Minister of Japan: August 12, 1945

"They [The atomic bombs and Soviet entry] are useful... elements for making things go smoothly." Marquis Koichi Kido, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal

"The main motive behind my decision at that time was that if we... did not act, the Japanese race would perish and I would be unable to protect my loyal subjects." - The Emperor Showa

As I have said, the Japanese disagree with you.

Thank you for those quotes NERVUN.

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.


So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

You a little confused here mate... Japan was mustering the civilan populace into a makeshift millitia, as Kamikaze attacks continued against Allied naval utility. The army was practically holding the emperor hostage- even if he wanted too surrender they wouldnt let him- or so I heared somewhere.

In the end it was the thing too do. Even the army hotheads of the time understood thier was no way of escaping a nuclear allied wrath.

Pearl Harbor.

You a little confused here mate... Japan was mustering the civilan populace into a makeshift millitia, as Kamikaze attacks continued against Allied naval utility. The army was practically holding the emperor hostage- even if he wanted too surrender they wouldnt let him- or so I heared somewhere.

In the end it was the thing too do. Even the army hotheads of the time understood thier was no way of escaping a nuclear allied wrath.

If I recall correctly the number of militia was like 10 or so million.

Pearl Harbor.
And this has WHAT to do with the current discussion?

If you're going to spout off mindless drivel, could you please at least make it on topic mindless drivel?

And this has WHAT to do with the current discussion?

If you're going to spout off mindless drivel, could you please at least make it on topic mindless drivel?

He's stating that we dropped the bombs in revenge for Pearl Harbor.

The army was practically holding the emperor hostage- even if he wanted too surrender they wouldnt let him- or so I heared somewhere.
Not quite. After the Emperor and the cabinet agreed to surrender and the Emperor recorded the broadcast, some mid-level officers of the Army assumed that the Emperor was being undually influenced by the Imperial Household Ministry and some of the civilian politicians. They attempted a coup in order to destroy the broadcast tapes and secure the personage of the Emperor. The bright idea being that the Emperor Showa would see that his troops were committed to fighting to the bloody end and, being so moved, withdraw his agreement to surrender.

Thankfully the tapes were hidden and the col. in charge of them refused to give them over (he was killed) and the guard managed to get the officers to stand down. The Emperor knew nothing of it till the next day.

He's stating that we dropped the bombs in revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Which makes even less sense as the topic has moved onto if the bombs needed to have been dropped to have ended the war.

Then when you add in the Tokyo fire bombings, the Doolittle Raid, Midway, Okinawa, and others... revenge doesn't even begin to enter into it.

And this has WHAT to do with the current discussion?

If you're going to spout off mindless drivel, could you please at least make it on topic mindless drivel?

Was Pearl harbor REALLY necessary? They didn't even try to negotiate! Peace! not war! War is baaad!


Did the Evil Japanese empire really have to go out and massacre those poor defenseless americans?

He's stating that we dropped the bombs in revenge for Pearl Harbor.

Revenge, retribution, and a desire to end the war and kick japan's ass.

Which we did.

Was Pearl harbor REALLY necessary? They didn't even try to negotiate! Peace! not war! War is baaad!


Did the Evil Japanese empire really have to go out and massacre those poor defenseless americans?

Sense we were an impedement to their southwestward expansion....

Revenge, retribution, and a desire to end the war and kick japan's ass.

Which we did.

And kicking them all the way back to Tokyo and then firebombing major cities wasn't enough for you?

Was Pearl harbor REALLY necessary? They didn't even try to negotiate! Peace! not war! War is baaad!
You SO totally fail at satire. Dear God man, before you attempt at it check your history so you don't end up looking foolish.

So let's go over the points here:

1. Was Pearl Harbor REALLY necessary? According to the Japanese war plan, yes. The idea was to knock out the Pacific Fleet, forcing America to acknowledge Japanese gains, allowing Japan time to start to exploit the natural resources within those gains to alleviate the embargoes imposed by the US. The High Command felt that with the US being isolationist and preoccupied by Europe, they would let Japan keep a few things in order not to be embroiled on a two front war. They were wrong.

2. They didn't even try to negotiate. This is where you REALLY look silly. The whole point of US anger was that Japan was talking with the US right up to the attack. Hell FDR mentioned it in his famous speech. "The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack."

Did the Evil Japanese empire really have to go out and massacre those poor defenseless americans?
And finally: 3. One can hardly call the US base at Perl defenseless. Surprised, taken in, caught off guard, yes. But a number of battleships, other ships, planes, anti-aircraft fire, and others hardly constitutes defenseless.

And finally: 3. One can hardly call the US base at Perl defenseless. Surprised, taken in, caught off guard, yes. But a number of battleships, other ships, planes, anti-aircraft fire, and others hardly constitutes defenseless.

Not to mention that the USS Ward got the first shot and kill before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

1. Was Pearl Harbor REALLY necessary? According to the Japanese war plan, yes. The idea was to knock out the Pacific Fleet, forcing America to acknowledge Japanese gains, allowing Japan time to start to exploit the natural resources within those gains to alleviate the embargoes imposed by the US. The High Command felt that with the US being isolationist and preoccupied by Europe, they would let Japan keep a few things in order not to be embroiled on a two front war. They were wrong.


Wasn't there a 'go south' plan which was favored by the army and ignored pearl?

(Not criticizing, just asking)

Not to mention that the USS Ward got the first shot and kill before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Very much so. Thanks, I had forgotten that.

Wasn't there a 'go south' plan which was favored by the army and ignored pearl?

(Not criticizing, just asking)

If they went south, they still had to entangle with the United States. Either way, there would be a War in the Pacific. The question was when.

Very much so. Thanks, I had forgotten that.

No problem mate. World War II: Pacific Theater is a specialty of mine :)

If they went south, they still had to entangle with the United States. Either way, there would be a War in the Pacific. The question was when.

Yah. But my point was that the idea of attacking pearl was not unanimous.

Wasn't there a 'go south' plan which was favored by the army and ignored pearl?

(Not criticizing, just asking)
Yes, the Army favored going South and ignoring much of the Pacific. The Navy; however, disagreed with it. Both sides ended up feeling the pinch of the oil embargo and the end result was a mishmash of both plans, the Army would go South and the Navy would take on the US Navy in an effort to keep the US away from the Army's efforts. The road to Perl is about as confusing as the end of the war.

Yes, the Army favored going South and ignoring much of the Pacific. The Navy; however, disagreed with it. Both sides ended up feeling the pinch of the oil embargo and the end result was a mishmash of both plans, the Army would go South and the Navy would take on the US Navy in an effort to keep the US away from the Army's efforts. The road to Perl is about as confusing as the end of the war.

Indeed.

Yah. But my point was that the idea of attacking pearl was not unanimous.
In a way, yes, and in a way no. The Japanese government worked on the unity principle (which it still does), meaning that consensus must be reached before an action was given. It's not quite the same as the US system of winners and losers.

That's why, even though the Army wasn't happy with the idea, it went along with the attack on Perl because they were allowed to go South at the same time. It's also why Japan ended up attacking on multiple fronts when it really should have concentrated on one or two of them.

And kicking them all the way back to Tokyo and then firebombing major cities wasn't enough for you?
Apparently it wasn't enough for them, since they hadn't surrendered by that time.

Apparently it wasn't enough for them, since they hadn't surrendered by that time.

True but still. The point being made was that the bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not out of revenge.

As I have said, the Japanese disagree with you.
That doesn’t make dropping the bombs the moral thing to do. And who cares if they surrendered anyway? They were hopelessly beaten? What could they do?

That doesn’t make dropping the bombs the moral thing to do. And who cares if they surrendered anyway? They were hopelessly beaten? What could they do?

Moral thing to do? No, it was not "moral" however it was neccessary. What does "morality" have to do with warfare? To connect the two is patently absurd.

That doesn’t make dropping the bombs the moral thing to do. And who cares if they surrendered anyway? They were hopelessly beaten? What could they do?
Continued fighting? Kept up kamikaze attacks? Stopped any and all food aid to a starving populous? Started guerrilla warfare in any number of areas, disrupting a return to normalcy for a wide area?

Yeah, they were beaten, but they hadn't given up and they were STILL fighting.

Not moral? I'm not sure which is more moral, dropping the bombs and killing over 200 thousand people, starving the Japanese population, possibly killing millions, invasion, also possibly killing millions, or perhaps the moral choice lied with the Showa Emperor and the High Command who knew they were defeated but waited until something came along to save face and protect the Throne. That to me seems to be where any question of morality lies.

I don't like the bombs, I hate the fact that they were dropped, and I am not looking forward to having to explain to any children I have why their father's country did something like that to their mother's country, and that they are related to A-bomb survivors and victims. But after a lot of study, I cannot see a way that would not have caused MORE deaths or would have caused Japan to capitulate earlier; even with information from both sides.

That doesn’t make dropping the bombs the moral thing to do.

Morality in warfare? What universe do you live in?

And who cares if they surrendered anyway?

Which did not happen till AFTER the bombs were dropped anyway.

They were hopelessly beaten?

Actually the pretty much were.

What could they do?

Make us exterminate them?

Continued fighting? Kept up kamikaze attacks? Stopped any and all food aid to a starving populous? Started guerrilla warfare in any number of areas, disrupting a return to normalcy for a wide area?

Yeah, they were beaten, but they hadn't given up and they were STILL fighting.

Not moral? I'm not sure which is more moral, dropping the bombs and killing over 200 thousand people, starving the Japanese population, possibly killing millions, invasion, also possibly killing millions, or perhaps the moral choice lied with the Showa Emperor and the High Command who knew they were defeated but waited until something came along to save face and protect the Throne. That to me seems to be where any question of morality lies.

I don't like the bombs, I hate the fact that they were dropped, and I am not looking forward to having to explain to any children I have why their father's country did something like that to their mother's country, and that they are related to A-bomb survivors and victims. But after a lot of study, I cannot see a way that would not have caused MORE deaths or would have caused Japan to capitulate earlier; even with information from both sides.

That is well said NERVUN. As to telling your chidren, just take your time with it and explain to them the events surrounding it from both sides. Best advice I can offer.

The fact the japan still had many (dont know the exact number) divisions waiting on the home island, it would have been a blood bath to take japan, add in the radical population of japan. Despite the moral questions, it would have taken too long and too many lifes to take the island. Not to mention the japs were working on (supposidly tested one aswell) a nuclear weapon (this is actually how the russians did it, got most of there info from japanese in asian facilities.)

The fact the japan still had many (dont know the exact number) divisions waiting on the home island, it would have been a blood bath to take japan, add in the radical population of japan. Despite the moral questions, it would have taken too long and too many lifes to take the island. Not to mention the japs were working on (supposidly tested one aswell) a nuclear weapon (this is actually how the russians did it, got most of there info from japanese in asian facilities.)

Espionage of the US Program did far more to that cause.

what are you, like...12?

This thread was resolved on the first page.

This thread was resolved on the first page.

As usual.

At any rate, the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki ended the war, and indeed ended all war between the great nations of the world.

The nuclear deterrance was established, an enormous number of japanese and american lives were saved.

The Japanese surrendered before the US dropped the Atomic Bomb.


So then why did the US drop the atomic bomb in the first place???:mad:

Are you trying to be an idiot or are you just naturally stupid? :confused:

Morality in warfare? What universe do you live in?A universe in which the Geneva Convention exists?

Wasn't there a 'go south' plan which was favored by the army and ignored pearl?

(Not criticizing, just asking)

As well as a Northern plan, which was thwarted by the Soviets in the late 30's.

If they went south, they still had to entangle with the United States. Either way, there would be a War in the Pacific. The question was when.

Indeed.

Yes, the Army favored going South and ignoring much of the Pacific. The Navy; however, disagreed with it. Both sides ended up feeling the pinch of the oil embargo and the end result was a mishmash of both plans, the Army would go South and the Navy would take on the US Navy in an effort to keep the US away from the Army's efforts. The road to Perl is about as confusing as the end of the war.

Hey, Nervun. Thanks for picking up the slack on this one. I kind of threw up my hands on it after arguing with a brickwall of a poster.

Ake-ome. ;)

This thread was resolved on the first page.

By the second post actually...

Because they didn't surrender until after.

And all the core issues were basically covered in my first post (#7).

Random un-named sources are highly untrustworthy.



Still incorrect. The civilian faction of the Japanese leadership (who had little power) had tried to open discussions regarding a conditional surrender. However , no surrender took place before August 15, 1945.

And in a pobably vain attmpt to short circuit the inevitable re-run of the "the bombs were unnecessary" debate, here's where it generally ends:
The civilain leadership was trying to grope towards a means of surrender. The extent they would have been able to get the military leaders, who held most of the power, to go along is almost nil.

The average Japanese would not have fough tooth and nail to the end. However, enough would have, and the military would have enforced enough mass suicides, that the deaths of a few hundred thousand civilians was less than would have occured in either an invasion or a seige.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was a major logistics center, as well as the headquarters for several armies. Nagasaki was an important naval base as well as naval ship yard. The original target of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki was the Kokura arsenal, the largest Japanese arsenal in Japan, and a major center of Japan's chemical weapons.

Japan was working on a nuclear weapon of it's own. The extent of their research is still not known, as both Japanese and US forces destroyed muchj of the evidence. One tantilising rumor (to be taken with the appropriate amount of salt) suggests that they even managed a fizzeled test in Korea.

As usual.

Indeed. It would help if people here could actually read....

At any rate, the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki ended the war, and indeed ended all war between the great nations of the world.

The nuclear deterrance was established, an enormous number of japanese and american lives were saved.

And that should be the very last word on this until the next time this topic rears it's ugly head. When it does, I'll probably start off like this one with a summary of all the times this has been done, and the conclusions reached, which will likewise be ignored, leading to another long drawn out thread equally full of misunderstandings.

Are you trying to be an idiot or are you just naturally stupid? :confused:

Did you really need to heap an insult on the OP at this late date, especially since he recognised his mistake on the first page, more than a week ago?

A universe in which the Geneva Convention exists?

If you mean Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", you'll find that it wasn't in effect until after the war. Perhapse you mean the earlier Hauge Conventions, since the morality element here has to do with attacking civilian populations? (Minor point, I know, but getting the correct treaties helps one be accurate in arguing one's point. ;))

A universe in which the Geneva Convention exists?

And pray tell where it was forbidden to use atomic bombs in the Geneva Conventions please.

If you mean Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", you'll find that it wasn't in effect until after the war. Perhapse you mean the earlier Hauge Conventions, since the morality element here has to do with attacking civilian populations? (Minor point, I know, but getting the correct treaties helps one be accurate in arguing one's point. ;))And pray tell where it was forbidden to use atomic bombs in the Geneva Conventions please.I'm wasn't trying to refer to anything specific about the convention or anything time specific with regards to the convention, just that morality in war is possible. Just like morality is possible within society and capitalism. All you need is a governing set of rules that the vast majority of participants will adhere to.

edit: I thought my comment was a fair one as I was replying to a generalised statement.

Boo-fucking-hoo. This is war, deal with it.

But, yeah, fuck the Japs, we don't care about them. You're right, AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN!

it's because of people like you why the entire world is pissed off at america. this is war? no. war involves combat between militaries, not innocent civilians. boo-fucking-hoo? thousands of lives are ruined, two cities are destroyed, no big deal, suck it up? who do you think you are?

it's because of people like you why the entire world is pissed off at america. this is war? no. war involves combat between militaries, not innocent civilians. boo-fucking-hoo? thousands of lives are ruined, two cities are destroyed, no big deal, suck it up? who do you think you are?

Just two cities destroyed? I think you may want to look at the war overall. More than two cities were destroyed and more lives where lost in those bombings than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Hey, Nervun. Thanks for picking up the slack on this one. I kind of threw up my hands on it after arguing with a brickwall of a poster.

Ake-ome. ;)
No problem, sometimes it seems that our only purpose on NSG is to argue this particular topic, ne?

Indeed. It would help if people here could actually read....
Or look things up in the archive. I mean, jesh, HOW many times have we gone over this?

Moral thing to do? No, it was not "moral" however it was neccessary. What does "morality" have to do with warfare? To connect the two is patently absurd.
If that is what you believe, than you are absurd.
Continued fighting? Kept up kamikaze attacks? Stopped any and all food aid to a starving populous? Started guerrilla warfare in any number of areas, disrupting a return to normalcy for a wide area?
Nothing stopping us from sending them food. Just could have kept them contained until they were ready to deal with reality.
Yeah, they were beaten, but they hadn't given up and they were STILL fighting.
They would have given up eventually.
I don't like the bombs, I hate the fact that they were dropped, and I am not looking forward to having to explain to any children I have why their father's country did something like that to their mother's country
Were you even alive in WWII? Then what does it matter. You’re not your country and there’s nothing to explain. The Truman administration used the bombs, and you have nothing to do with that
But after a lot of study, I cannot see a way that would not have caused MORE deaths or would have caused Japan to capitulate earlier; even with information from both sides.
Blockade the island and send food. There.

And pray tell where it was forbidden to use atomic bombs in the Geneva Conventions please.

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

However, as I pinted out above, this convention wasn't signed until after the war. The applicable treaties were the Hauge Treaty of 1899, "Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899", and the Hauge Treaty of 1907, "Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907".

Article 25

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm

However, this was largly ignored by all sides.

I'm wasn't trying to refer to anything specific about the convention or anything time specific with regards to the convention, just that morality in war is possible. Just like morality is possible within society and capitalism. All you need is a governing set of rules that the vast majority of participants will adhere to.

edit: I thought my comment was a fair one as I was replying to a generalised statement.

It was a fair one, I'm just trying to point you in the direction of the applicable treaty. ;)

Nothing stopping us from sending them food. Just could have kept them contained until they were ready to deal with reality.
Riiiight, the Japanese government would have allowed hostile ships to dock, unload, and distribute food all over a country that is 78% mountainous and stretches from Main down to the Florida Keys.

And believe me, it would have taken a very long time for them to 'deal with reality'. They knew they were beaten from the get-go, but they still fought. Heck, years AFTER the war, units were still fighting because the refused to accept surrender.

They would have given up eventually.
Yes, they would have given up eventually, but many, many, MANY more people would have been killed.

Were you even alive in WWII? Then what does it matter. You’re not your country and there’s nothing to explain. The Truman administration used the bombs, and you have nothing to do with that
No, I was not alive during WWII. However, my father-in-law was. He was in the hills above Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Now HIS father managed to avoid the blast, but went into Hiroshima afterwards to look for food and got caught in a very strange black rain. He died of what the Japanese government calls A-Bomb disease. I am married to a child of a Hibakusha; it matters a lot to me, and my wife.

Blockade the island and send food. There.
The home islands were already blockaded and we couldn't send them food. The amount of people who would have died from starvation would have been staggering, far above the amount of deaths caused by the bombs.

Actually, Japan had considered, and rejected nuclear options. They were, instead, working on weapons based on such technologies as sonic disruption, which would have been enormously potent at short ranges, and almost useless at long range.

America made a number of excuses about 'legitimate military targets' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those excuses were no more honest or realistic than the fairytale WMD's that Saddam was supposed to happen. A 'logistics' centre in a city is not a realistic justification for a nuclear strike on a civilian city, any more than Israel firing into Lebanon's marketplaces was 'legitimate'.

It is sad that America as a whole is even willing to listen to such claptrap out of the powers-that-be, much less tolerate or even endorse it.

The real reason the US dropped nuclear devices on Japanese cities, was that they had spent a hell of a lot of money on it, and wanted to see it in action. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatant women and children died in the name of American hubris.

So I guess being attacked by members of an organization you can prove came from a certain country and a certain city (the city which in this campaign was attacked), and that the country in question wasn't doing a damn thing about it isn't a 'legitimate' reason for fighting? I'm afraid to know your definition of legitimate (probably after your already dead, then it becomes legitimate right? :rolleyes: )

Riiiight, the Japanese government would have allowed hostile ships to dock, unload, and distribute food all over a country that is 78% mountainous and stretches from Main down to the Florida Keys.

And believe me, it would have taken a very long time for them to 'deal with reality'. They knew they were beaten from the get-go, but they still fought. Heck, years AFTER the war, units were still fighting because the refused to accept surrender.
Not anyone's fault but their own if they refuse mercy.
No, I was not alive during WWII. However, my father-in-law was. He was in the hills above Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Now HIS father managed to avoid the blast, but went into Hiroshima afterwards to look for food and got caught in a very strange black rain. He died of what the Japanese government calls A-Bomb disease. I am married to a child of a Hibakusha; it matters a lot to me, and my wife.
As long as you don't feel guilty about it.

No problem, sometimes it seems that our only purpose on NSG is to argue this particular topic, ne?


Or look things up in the archive. I mean, jesh, HOW many times have we gone over this?

Indeed, indeed.

Nothing stopping us from sending them food. Just could have kept them contained until they were ready to deal with reality.

They would have given up eventually.

Blockade the island and send food. There.

So your position is that having the initiative, we should have sat back and allowed, no, helped, Japan to regain her strength by not attacking and giving food aid, without bringing an end to the war? That is effectively what your suggestions would have done...

Riiiight, the Japanese government would have allowed hostile ships to dock, unload, and distribute food all over a country that is 78% mountainous and stretches from Main down to the Florida Keys.

And believe me, it would have taken a very long time for them to 'deal with reality'. They knew they were beaten from the get-go, but they still fought. Heck, years AFTER the war, units were still fighting because the refused to accept surrender.


Yes, they would have given up eventually, but many, many, MANY more people would have been killed.


No, I was not alive during WWII. However, my father-in-law was. He was in the hills above Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Now HIS father managed to avoid the blast, but went into Hiroshima afterwards to look for food and got caught in a very strange black rain. He died of what the Japanese government calls A-Bomb disease. I am married to a child of a Hibakusha; it matters a lot to me, and my wife.


The home islands were already blockaded and we couldn't send them food. The amount of people who would have died from starvation would have been staggering, far above the amount of deaths caused by the bombs.

Blockade the island and send them food sounds a little absurd mainly because the last time we had allowed Japan to be blockaded and just send them food they helped start World War 2 (Though it was Isolation, which created imperialism).

I will agree that the atomic weapons were not necessary, we could have just firebombed all of Japan just like we did Dresden (which actually killed more people than the Atomic weapons) until they were ready to deal with reality, and at the same time we could have blockaded the island and sent them food and allowed their children to bury the burnt carcases of their dead parents... and in keeping with our blockade spirit since it had worked so well, refuse to help rebuild Japan. That solution is very humane I wonder why the US didn't do it.

It was a fair one, I'm just trying to point you in the direction of the applicable treaty. ;)Ah, ok. Thanks then. :) You and NEVRUN do make a pretty good tag team when it comes to subject regarding Japan. *is suitably impressed*

Blockade the island and send them food sounds a little absurd mainly because the last time we had allowed Japan to be blockaded and just send them food they helped start World War 2 (Though it was Isolation, which created imperialism).

Err... say what? Care to try that bit again, as it made no sense.

I will agree that the atomic weapons were not necessary, we could have just firebombed all of Japan just like we did Dresden (which actually killed more people than the Atomic weapons) until they were ready to deal with reality, and at the same time we could have blockaded the island and sent them food and allowed their children to bury the burnt carcases of their dead parents... and in keeping with our blockade spirit since it had worked so well, refuse to help rebuild Japan.

As has been pointed out multiple times, we were firebombing the hell out of Japan in 1945. We started with Tokyo and worked our way down. By August, the US had firebombed . In fact the number of deaths from the firebombings of Tokyo, at 100,000+, was in the range of the atomic bombings (but not Dresden at 25-30,000 killed).

That solution is very humane I wonder why the US didn't do it.

We were trying it. It wasn't working.

Ah, ok. Thanks then. :) You and NEVRUN do make a pretty good tag team when it comes to subject regarding Japan. *is suitably impressed*

:::Blushes::: Thank you.

Not anyone's fault but their own if they refuse mercy.
You have a strange view of mercy. You seem to feel that it is somehow more merciful to allow a population to starve and cause more deaths (or suffer invasion) over a longer time than it was to use the bombs and end the war sooner.

As long as you don't feel guilty about it.
No, I don't feel guilty about it, but I do know that I will have to explain it one day.

The first part: We left Japan alone and they attacked us, if we had not sufficiently broken the Japanese people they would have started World War 3 just as the Germans started World War 2 (especially if we had allowed them to surrender with conditions).

The rest of that was largely satire, my point being that in war you make tough decisions dropping the Atom bombs was part of that.

I will agree that the atomic weapons were not necessary, we could have just firebombed all of Japan just like we did Dresden (which actually killed more people than the Atomic weapons) until they were ready to deal with reality, and at the same time we could have blockaded the island and sent them food and allowed their children to bury the burnt carcases of their dead parents... and in keeping with our blockade spirit since it had worked so well, refuse to help rebuild Japan. That solution is very humane I wonder why the US didn't do it.
Ok, one more time. The atomic bombs did not end the war in the sense of the Showa Emperor and General Tojo got news of them and suddenly exclaimed, "Ara! The Allied Devils have this new terrible weapon! Bikurishita! Kowaiyo! We MUST surrender now before they kill us with it!" The bombs were the excuse that the Showa Emperor and the Cabinet were looking for to surrender that would allow the Throne to escape any blame for the war. Obviously the fire bombings weren't doing the trick.

Ah, ok. Thanks then. :) You and NEVRUN do make a pretty good tag team when it comes to subject regarding Japan. *is suitably impressed*
Comes from living in Japan. ;)

That and I don't know about my friend down in Osaka, but Nagano is rather snowbound right now so... :p

Ok, one more time. The atomic bombs did not end the war in the sense of the Showa Emperor and General Tojo got news of them and suddenly exclaimed, "Ara! The Allied Devils have this new terrible weapon! Bikurishita! Kowaiyo! We MUST surrender now before they kill us with it!" The bombs were the excuse that the Showa Emperor and the Cabinet were looking for to surrender that would allow the Throne to escape any blame for the war. Obviously the fire bombings weren't doing the trick.

I know it didn't have that effect on Tojo, after the emperor gave the news he attempted suicide, failed and managed to kill himself in the hospital (if I'm remembering correctly), but the fact remains that the bombs worked even if it was in a political way.

The first part: We left Japan alone and they attacked us, if we had not sufficiently broken the Japanese people they would have started World War 3 just as the Germans started World War 2 (especially if we had allowed them to surrender with conditions).
Just as a point to your argument though, we didn't leave them alone. The US was the one who opened up Japan, the US was the one who brokered the peace deal between Russia and Japan, and intervened in the Sino-Japanese war, and was party to the non-seating of the Japanese delegation at the end of WWI, and of course the embargo.

Not to mention all the trade and immigration restrictions. We were actually heavily engaged with Japan right up to the war.

You have a strange view of mercy. You seem to feel that it is somehow more merciful to allow a population to starve and cause more deaths (or suffer invasion) over a longer time than it was to use the bombs and end the war sooner.


No, I don't feel guilty about it, but I do know that I will have to explain it one day.

that's an interesting way of putting it. So are you saying that letting 200,000 people die by either vaporization/burning/building collapse or from radiation an acceptable sacrifice than say letting the whole of Japan be deprived of oil and and foreign based supplies?

I think the dropping of the bomb was just wrong in so many ways. Not just politically/militarily but also morally. We were thought of as the good guy nation until we made that decision to drop the bomb. We did not even warn the populous of the weapon we were going to drop on their city. Also there was no way in hell the Japanese could have won the war at that point. Take this for example: 1-Every remaining world power at the time had declared war on Japan including the big 3. 2-Japan was so short on supplies that the reason why they did not make any attempt to intercept the Enola Gay, was not because they didn't detect it (they actually did on radar, sounded air raids in most major cities), but because they were following a policy of conserving supplies and badly needed fuel by not sending fighters to intercept small American formations. Also the dropping of the bomb led to the massive waste of a nuclear arms race that later occurred during the cold war. We got our short term prize of ending an already decided war but at the cost of long term consequences. The Russians saw that we had that power and even more so: we used it militarily and thus they hurried up to develop their own offensive military technology.

edit: let me add that we could also have pursued a different offensive than nukes or retarded invasions: bat-bombs. http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat.html
Those bat bombs although they sound completely retarded actually worked: they burned down a simulated village of Japanese buildings, an aircraft hanger and a generals car when a careless keeper let them out by accident. They also had a proven range of spreading fires in up to a 40 mile radius. Coupled with the fact that just about every Jap building at the time including many factories were made out of wood and you have a major weapon on your hands. Hell the World would probably have laughed their asses off on how we attacked japan rather than say OMGz! when we nuked them. Also they were to be combat ready mid-1945

:::Blushes::: Thank you.About bloody time. I don't hand out compliments to just anyone. I thought you might not notice it. If that had happened I would have had to defenstrate you otherwise. Wonderful word defenestrate. Haven't used it ages. ;)

that's an interesting way of putting it. So are you saying that letting 200,000 people die by either vaporization/burning/building collapse or from radiation an acceptable sacrifice than say letting the whole of Japan be deprived of oil and and foreign based supplies?
An estimated (rough given that record keeping from that time is spotty or non-existent) half a million people died the first few years AFTER the war due to poor nutrition, sanitation, and disease. This was WITH American aid and supplies and no bombings to stop transportation.

500,000 people, more than twice the amount killed by the bombs. How much worse would it have been if the US sealed off Japan for years without aid? How many millions may have been killed then? THAT'S why I put it that way. Japan at the end of the war was not a nice place to be. School children were being sent out into the countryside to catch grasshoppers, for something to eat.

I think the dropping of the bomb was just wrong in so many ways. Not just politically/militarily but also morally. We were thought of as the good guy nation until we made that decision to drop the bomb. We did not even warn the populous of the weapon we were going to drop on their city. Also there was no way in hell the Japanese could have won the war at that point. Take this for example: 1-Every remaining world power at the time had declared war on Japan including the big 3. 2-Japan was so short on supplies that the reason why they did not make any attempt to intercept the Enola Gay, was not because they didn't detect it (they actually did on radar, sounded air raids in most major cities), but because they were following a policy of conserving supplies and badly needed fuel by not sending fighters to intercept small American formations.
Please read the rest of the thread, this has been covered in depth. I'll just say, again, that yes, the Japanese knew they were beaten, but they still would not give up.

Comes from living in Japan. ;)

That and I don't know about my friend down in Osaka, but Nagano is rather snowbound right now so... :p

Actually, I'm in the states at the moment, visiting my family in Iowa, where we've had litle snow but lottsa meat. :D

About bloody time. I don't hand out compliments to just anyone. I thought you might not notice it. If that had happened I would have had to defenstrate you otherwise. Wonderful word defenestrate. Haven't used it ages. ;)

You can do it anyway, as long as the drop isn't too far. (I almost said as long as it's from the 1st floor, but then I've seen some 1st floors with loooonggg drops. ;))

You have a strange view of mercy. You seem to feel that it is somehow more merciful to allow a population to starve and cause more deaths (or suffer invasion) over a longer time than it was to use the bombs and end the war sooner.
Not strange at all. If they refuse help, then they die of their own volition, not another’s.