Did the US need to drop the Atomic Bomb in WW2? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 03-12-2004, 02:08 PM

Recent conversations in another thread lead me to post this.

In my research, among the many websites/books on the topic, I ran across this concise and to the point website:

http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

What the author left out was that there were approximately 300,000 white slave laborers that the Japanese held in China that were slated for execution if the Japanese home island was invaded.

To me, there is absolutely no question that the bombing ultimately saved lives on both sides. The Japanese were fanatical and truly thought they could repel an invasion. They were also willing to fight to the death of the last man, woman and child (it was honorable).

Further, they rejected the call to surrender at Potsdam when they knew that they would be invaded otherwise.

Other sites that I referenced:

http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfal0.html

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1195f.asp

http://www.leesaunders.com/html/PacWar.htm

And to be fair, a strong revisionist article which I feel the article quoted underneath deals with somewhat:

http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_l...a25/zach12.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link

Why did President Truman drop the atomic bomb?

At the end of World War II, few questioned Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans accepted the obvious reasoning: the atomic bombings brought the war to a more timely end. They did not have a problem with over one hundred thousand of the enemy being killed. After all, the Japanese attacked America, and not the other way around. In later years, however, many have begun to question the conventional wisdom of “Truman was saving lives,” putting forth theories of their own. However, when one examines the issue with great attention to the results of the atomic bombings and compares these results with possible alternatives to using said bombs, the line between truth and fiction begins to clear. Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was for the purpose of saving lives and ending the war quickly in order to prevent a disastrous land invasion.

The people who are now questioning Truman’s motives are often known as Revisionists, because they attempt to revise common perceptions of history, proposing alternate theories and motives. As early as 1946 they begin to postulate new ideas, but their words only began to receive credence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Revisionists contend that Truman either had ulterior motives in the dropping of the atomic bombs or that he used these bombs on Japan for an entirely different reason, one that had nothing to do with saving lives.

Most people who were alive at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, especially veterans, subscribe to the “traditional” belief that Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan for solely military reasons. A timely end to the war would mean that no land invasion of Japan is necessary. Such an invasion would have been extraordinarily costly in terms of not only American lives, but also in terms of Japanese dead. Ending the war quickly would return soldiers to their homes and allow Americans to begin a life of normality again.

The Revisionists, however, believe that Truman had either partially or entirely different reasons for bombing Japan. They believe that the destruction of two Japanese cities would accomplish several things. Most obviously, it would punish the Japanese for the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the atrocious treatment of American prisoners of war. Also, an atomic bombing of Japan is also the only thing that would justify the expense of the Manhattan Project. If this expense was not justified, Truman would have faced a Congressional inquiry into the misappropriation of $2 billion. Not only did he want to avoid Congressional hearings, but he also wanted another term of office. His chances of reelection would have been nil if it were learned by the general public that he wasted money and American lives by shelving a weapon that could have ended the war more quickly. The final Revisionist claim is that Truman wanted to give the U.S. and edge in the coming Cold War by showing that he was not afraid to use these weapons of mass destruction.

They also say that Truman should have chosen one of the several available ways to compel a Japanese surrender without an atomic bombing of two cities. The most obvious alternative is an American invasion of Japan. Olympic was the code-name given to the planned American invasion of Kyushu, one of the four Japanese home islands, if an atomic bomb were not available by late October. Two separate estimates exist to rate the number of American casualties that would result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the army’s chief of staff, bluntly rejected them.

A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.

It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahy’s estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.

These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers.

The Japanese army was already training its civilians to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. According to samurai tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for Japan and the emperor, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart. Using sharpened pikes the Japanese could easily prevent a military government from being effective in those towns which the U. S. captured. Futher, and even more brutal, was the training of young children to be “Sherman carpets.” Japanese children were to be strapped with TNT and throw themselves under American tanks, thereby dying in the most honorable way possible--by killing the enemy. It can be assumed that at least as many civilians would have died as soldiers, bringing the totals somewhere around 200,000 to four million Japanese dead, along with the 50,000 to one million American dead, totaling 250,000 to five million total dead.

It was hoped that the Japanese military would capitulate once American forces occupied the Tokyo Plain, but it is possible that they would fight to the last man. On Saipan, nearly 900 Japanese killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner by Americans. Such was the Japanese philosophy to fight to the last man. If an entire nation was compelled to launch suicide attacks against the occupying army, it is conceivable that many, many millions of Japanese civilians would die.

In order to make an accurate comparison between the dropping of the atomic bombs and Operation Olympic, one must be adequately knowledgeable of the destruction that took place in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bombing killed about 66,000 people and devastated 4. 4 square miles, over two-thirds of the city. The Nagasaki bombing killed about 39,000 people, and destroyed half the city, bringing the total to 105,000 Japanese dead.

Of the Revisionist theories, the most common one is that Truman simply wanted to impress Stalin by dropping the atomic bomb. This is simply not the case. The most imperative thing on Truman’s mind as he let the bombings go forward was that they would prevent a land invasion of Kyushu and the massive loss of life, both American and Japanese, that would accompany such an invasion. Ironically, atomic bombs were to be used to clear the beach heads for Operation Olympic, if an invasion would have been necessary. Scientists had assured Truman, erroneously, that sufficient radiation would have cleared from the beaches to allow American soldiers to land in safety. Even if Truman had chosen to invade instead of use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would still have been used, just in a different capacity. Furthermore, if Truman had wanted to impress Stalin, he would not have told Stalin that the United States had “produced a bomb of extraordinary power.” Instead, he would have let the shock have its effect on both the Soviet Union and on Japan.

The only way anyone can judge Truman’s motives in dropping the atomic bomb is by analyzing the result of his decision. No one can know, even by reading his personal diary, the exact reasons he had for using the bomb. It was likely a combination of many: punishment, justification of cost, saving lives, and ending the war as quickly as possible. However, it is evident that in the “grand scheme of things” the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly. Truman’s motives, therefore, cannot be called into question in light of the results of his decision. At least in this case, the end justifies the means.

Written by David Dinkins

Lebell · 03-12-2004, 02:13 PM

Another excellent site:

http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/...ma/ytruman.htm

Superbelt · 03-12-2004, 02:18 PM

I know it may seem a bit weak, but I wish that we would have dropped one of the bombs on an uninhabited pacific island first, and did it with the worlds attention.

Then threatened to drop several on various Japanese cities if we didn't secure their unconditional surrender.

I think that action of bravado may have spared both Okinawa and Nagasaki.

Lebell · 03-12-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I know it may seem a bit weak, but I wish that we would have dropped one of the bombs on an uninhabited pacific island first, and did it with the worlds attention.

Then threatened to drop several on various Japanese cities if we didn't secure their unconditional surrender.

I think that action of bravado may have spared both Okinawa and Nagasaki.

While I wish things were different, Glen Seeborg (discoverer of Plutonium) signed just such a statement and still said that the Japanese still might not have surrendered and that it could be argued either way.

But consider this:

Even after vaporizing TWO Japanese cities, the war council was STILL split 3-3 on surrender. It took the Emperor to force the issue.

Two cities.

Almost 200,000 dead.

And half the council STILL wanted to keep fighting.

Strange Famous · 03-12-2004, 02:44 PM

My view remains, Japan was on the verge of surrender, and the only reason the bombs were dropped was to force them to surrender to America, and not jointly to America and Russia.

Although, it is too often forgotten that the Japanese murdered more Chinese civilians than the Germans murdered Jews according to most historians... in a way, it is almost as if the brutal punishment beating of the carpet bombing and finally the atomic bombing against the already ruined Japan somehow distracted people from the horror of Japa's war crimes.

Arc101 · 03-12-2004, 02:48 PM

I hate to admit it, but it was the only way to finish the war without lots more people being killed. I am just thankful that I will never be in a position to make such hard choices. By the way, I am convinced Bush to love to use a nuke sometime, he would probably justify it saying God told him to do it. So beware anyone who looks or talks in a foreign way, or anyone who is gay.

The_Dunedan · 03-12-2004, 03:04 PM

Lebell is correct on this one. Not only were the Japanese arming their entire civillian population and producing primitive ballistic weapons for deployment against allied vessels. No Surrender was the policy of the Japanese govornment, as well as a large portion of the civillian population.

However, what nobody ever talks about is the amount of -Japanese- lives saved by the bomb. Prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US/British/Soviet plan for the invasion of the Home Islands called for massive airial bombardment with CHEMICAL weapons. It was believed that this was the only way to reduce the expected massive resistance from the freshly-armed civillian population, and was expected to cause a -minimum- of 6,000,000 deaths. It was believed that the fighting following the actual invasion of the Home Islands would claim an additional 1 Million Americans, 1 Million Russians, 100,000 British, and a minimum of 1 Million additional Japanese, on -top- of those who had already died in the chemical bombardment a week or so earlier.

So, add it all up.
Home Islands Invasion:
6,000,000 civillians dead from chemical weapons
2.1 Million dead Allied soldiers
1 Million dead Japanese combatants.
Total: 9 Million dead.

And these were the -lowball- estimates. The much more extensive estimates of the Soviets and British ran into the 12-15 Million dead range, according to B. H. Liddel Hart.

Strange Famous · 03-12-2004, 03:14 PM

I simply do not believe any of the figures that are being quoted, they have no true basis - Japan was days away from surrender when the atomic bombs were dropped.

Lebell · 03-12-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I simply do not believe any of the figures that are being quoted, they have no true basis - Japan was days away from surrender when the atomic bombs were dropped.

Of course you don't believe them.

I've noticed that you never believe anything that doesn't agree with your position, regardless of how many sources you are given.

To cling so tenaciously to a position can be admirable, but to do so when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not.

Strange Famous · 03-12-2004, 03:26 PM

What I read at university is what I base my opinions on, you can always find websites that support the orthodoxy.

Lebell · 03-12-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
What I read at university is what I base my opinions on, you can always find websites that support the orthodoxy.

Of course.

And orthodoxy isn't a bad thing or a good thing, it's just what people agree upon, hence orthodoxy.

If I may gently point out, there is currently another thread being discussed where someone else goes against 'orthodoxy', in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So to go against orthodoxy because a person has good personal reasons, I applaud. To go against it because a person doesn't like 'orthodoxy' is simply foolish.

JohnnyRoyale · 03-12-2004, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I know it may seem a bit weak, but I wish that we would have dropped one of the bombs on an uninhabited pacific island first, and did it with the worlds attention.

If I remember correctly, the US offered just this option to the embassador of the Japanese, and the Japan military leaders, but they refeused?

BigGov · 03-12-2004, 04:30 PM

Strange Famous, please direct us to where exactly you read that Japan was "just days from surrendering."

Oh, and if they were "just days from surrendering," why were they still producing jet fighters in mountain sides? If Japan had stayed in till say, the Spring of 1946 when they had a full fleet of fighter jets capable of being deployed through mountain sides that protected against virtually any attack, well, we'd have a few problems.

Also, with the tooth and nail fighting the marines experienced throughout most of the Pacific theater, how should the USA expect any different when invading Japanese homeland? If anything, it should have been worse than Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, or Okinawa.

Ustwo · 03-12-2004, 05:04 PM

I did a big paper on this many years ago.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, yes damn straight.

I am personally very glad they dropped those bombs, my grandfather was a US Marine who survived Iwo Jima and was waiting on transport to invade the home island. There is a very good chance I would not be here unless those bombs were dropped. Also while perhaps my very exsistance depended on those bombs, this played no part in my conclusion that the bombs needed to be dropped, I didn't even know it until after I had written my paper. Unfortunetly explaining WHY they were needed would take said paper (which is lost along with the C-64) as it is not something you can do in just a few paragraphs.

But as a short answer, ANYONE who thinks the Japanese would have surrendered anytime soon without those bombs does not understand the Japanese of WWII.

Zeld2.0 · 03-12-2004, 05:06 PM

TBH either way you cut it the bombs would've been dropped be it legitimate or not in your eyes.

Harry S. Truman had a tough decision to make, but the final choice was simple for him: do it or face impeachment.

I don't remember the exact quote but it something like "Mr. President, what will you tell Congress a year from now that you had a way of ending the war and didn't use it."

As for Japan - in the end the Emperor had the ultimate call. Despite arguments on both sides, its the Emperor's final choice.

IMO a war council vote means shit because if the Emperor said "game over" they listened - on the flipside the bombs defenitely influenced his final choice (as did an attempted coup by hard-liners).

Ustwo · 03-12-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
TBH either way you cut it the bombs would've been dropped be it legitimate or not in your eyes.

Harry S. Truman had a tough decision to make, but the final choice was simple for him: do it or face impeachment.

I don't remember the exact quote but it something like "Mr. President, what will you tell Congress a year from now that you had a way of ending the war and didn't use it."

As for Japan - in the end the Emperor had the ultimate call. Despite arguments on both sides, its the Emperor's final choice.

IMO a war council vote means shit because if the Emperor said "game over" they listened - on the flipside the bombs defenitely influenced his final choice (as did an attempted coup by hard-liners).

Attempted coup came AFTER he decided to surrender and played no part in the decision.

You know why, despite there being plenty of evidence that Hirohito was a war criminal we let him off the hook and portrayed him as a figure head? Because we really did NOT want to invade and had we not agreed to this one condition that Hirohito be allowed to stay Emperor in name (if not as a god) they would not have surrendered.

The_Dunedan · 03-12-2004, 05:23 PM

Strange Famous,
Please consult several books by your countrymen for these figures.
"The Grand Alliance" is a good start, by B.H. Liddell Hart. See also "Bodygaurd of Lies," by Anthony Cave Browns. "The History of The Second World War" by Winston Churchill goes into the Japan situation in somewhat greater detail, but is a much more detailed work as a whole.
The memoirs of Admiral Karl Doernitz mentions this situation, but only tangentally. See also the memoirs of Gen. Curtis LeMay and Gregory Boyington.

Mr. Famous, please do more careful research on this one. The -vast- majority of research and opinion regarding this issue, both current and contemporary, supports my assertions on this. In addition, researchers from "WW2 Magazine" and the IAEA have discovered evidence that Japan had a nuclear weapons program of it's own, and may even have been close to testing a weapon. While this is speculative research at best, it is still out there.

Ustwo · 03-12-2004, 05:31 PM

'Japan's Imperial Conspiracy' - David Bergamini

Both volumes, one of the best books on Japanese politics in the build up to war, and during the war. Its a few 1000 pages I think (read it a LONG time ago), and worth the time.

Zeld2.0 · 03-12-2004, 06:01 PM

Yeah those are good books

BTW i phrased the thing wrong - the coup asssured Hirohito it was the right decision.

And yes despite the "unconditional surrender" in secret we did allow Hirohito to stay at that position despite evidence he took a much bigger role in Japan than most people thought.

Rekna · 03-12-2004, 06:58 PM

If they were days away from surrender then why didn't they surrender after the first bomb?

If the US had given a warning shot with the first bomb then they would have only had one to drop on cities.

They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped so what makes you think a warning shot and 1 bomb on a city was enough to convince them?

Jizz-Fritter · 03-12-2004, 07:51 PM

Historians and politicians really want us to believe that the a-bomb was necessary, but I doubt that it was. I don't have any evidence, just MHO.

Rekna · 03-12-2004, 07:58 PM

It doesn't really matter anymore anyways. It is the past and times have drastically changed from them even though it is only 60 years ago.

Conflict was completely revolutionized in the 20th century, over and over again.

Ustwo · 03-12-2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jizz-Fritter
Historians and politicians really want us to believe that the a-bomb was necessary, but I doubt that it was. I don't have any evidence, just MHO.

Ummm ok so Historians think we needed to drop it, politicians say we did, my grandfather is damn glad we did, yet you see no evidence. Where do you get your evidence from in life on events you were not there for, and happened before most people you know were born?

mystmarimatt · 03-12-2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jizz-Fritter
Historians and politicians really want us to believe that the a-bomb was necessary, but I doubt that it was. I don't have any evidence, just MHO.

Well, technically, you're right. It wasn't necessary, but from military and social standpoints, it was a far more feasable, striking message than an invasion.

I view it as such, seeing that we saved many more american lives (and yes, possibly more japanese lives) by dropping it.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 12:36 AM

In fact, the carpet bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic weapons. I amnot denying that an invasion of Japan would have been difficult and cost many lives - but let's at least be honest with ourselves. America's concern was not really the loss of life, it was that Russia would have half of Japan under its control in the invasion scenario.

I amnot disputing though, the dificulty and loss of life involved in a land war against Japan, what I am disputing is the liklihood of this war happening - from a military point of view Japan was already beaten and virtually helpless - they were at the very point of the attack trying to negoiate a surrender - this is an easily proveable historical fact.

Ustwo · 03-13-2004, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
they were at the very point of the attack trying to negoiate a surrender - this is an easily proveable historical fact.

I just love how you say things like this, its kind of cute. Perhaps you don't understand but the only surrender possible was an unconditional one, the entire government of Japan had to be removed from power. We did give in enough to let the Emperor not face charges, but that’s it. To call the Japanese 'helpless' shows a horrible lack of understanding of the Japanese psyche. Read about the battle of Iow Jima and Okinawa (where the first Japanese civilians came into contact with ground forces) and tell me how 'beaten' they were and how ready they were to surrender. Families committed suicide in their shelters rather then be captured, wounded soldiers, who could have been easily saved, held onto live grenades hoping to get a US soldier close enough to kill them both. When the final advance was taking place thousands threw themselves off cliffs to avoid the Americans who they thought would kill them (and based on how Japan treated their prisoners its of little surprise in this thought).

Don't place your own biases into the mindset of a WWII era Japanese civilian or soldier. The Japanese were brutal and cruel to the extreme, but no one can deny their bravery and willingness to die. Their hope for an invasion of the mainland was they would make it so bloody, that the American people, sick of war, would be willing to make a negotiated peace. Women and children were armed and ‘trained’ to charge allied troops with basically spears. Caches of weapons were hidden all over. Single fighters set for Kamikaze missions were hidden all over the island.

After the two bombs were dropped, the high command didn’t change their plans at all, it didn’t matter to them if a city was destroyed by one big bomb or 10,000 little ones, they expected the major cities to be destroyed. It was only the realization that Japan might cease to exist as nation and a culture that changed the emperor’s mind, and even then it was a razors edge between surrender and a coup to kidnap the emperor and continue the fighting.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 01:18 AM

Well clearly then we both agree that the atomic weapons were used only to try and enforce more favourbale surrender terms for Japan. You also agree that Japan wanted an end to the war and peace with America.

Rekna · 03-13-2004, 02:01 AM

Yeah the US didn't care about the loss of their soldiers lives at all....... in fact they were hoping they could have a chance to loose hundreds of thousands more but were dissapointed when Japan surrendered. Maybe they should have just bunched up their troups and dropped the bomb on their own troups since they didn't care about the loss of life.

tecoyah · 03-13-2004, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Well clearly then we both agree that the atomic weapons were used only to try and enforce more favourbale surrender terms for Japan. You also agree that Japan wanted an end to the war and peace with America.

Of course America was trying to get a surrender....ah, ..it was a war. As for the rest of your statement, what color is the sun on your planet?

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 09:16 AM

Strange Famous,
I realize that this is "capitalist logic," but this entire situation is almost laughable. You have been presented with references, both current and contemporary, by well-regarded scholars who have studied this problem extensively. You have, in return, made unfounded assertions backed up by precisely.....nothing.
You allege to base your opinions on books you read at University; which books? By which authors? What are these author's qualifications to write on this subject? What other books have they published? When you can present us with sources to back up your unfounded assertions, then maybe your arguements will have some credibility. However, please be advised that the nonsense printed by Pravda ( which has repeatedly denied the Ukranian Famine of the '20s ) or the World Socialist's website ( which has supported Russian genocide in Chechnya ) will most emphatically -not- be accepted as 'sources.' Real Historians only, if you please.

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 10:06 AM

A 5 second google search and a quick click on the first article...

I didnt really see that I needed to post references, that Japan was trying to surrender, the atom bonb was dropped so America would win Japan rather than have to share it with Russia, that it saved no lives at all... all of these seemed to me to be clear and obvious facts.

I am not trying to deny Japan in WWII was a vicious, aggressive, and inhumanly brutal force, responsible for terrible massacres... but the fact is in 45 Japan was beaten, they were trying to negoiate surrender, America knew this... they did not drop those bombs to save lives.

Quote:

In August 1945, the Japanese situation was desperate. The major cities were devastated by atomic or conventional attack, and the casualties numbered in the millions. Millions more were refugees, and the average daily calorie consumption was below 1200. The fleet was lost, and the merchant shipping could not leave home waters or sail from the few possessions still held. Oil stocks were gone, rubber and steel were in short supply, and the Soviets were moving against the only sizable forces the Japanese had left, the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. They were a starving and undersupplied force. Many divisions had transferred to the Pacific, where they died in the island battles.

Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation. The cabinet, made up of elder statesmen, tried to send out peace feelers through neutral Sweden, Soviet Union, and Switzerland as early as June 1945. The only condition was the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. Unwilling or unclear of the Japanese offer, the Allies refused and issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26th.

The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs.

The Emperor ordered a surrender document be sent accepting the Potsdam declaration. Through Swiss channels, it was sent to the United States, but it added that the Emperor must be left on the Imperial Throne. The Allies replied that the Emperor would be subject to the Allied Occupation Commander. While the cabinet debated, the Emperor secretly recorded a surrender broadcast. Imperial Guardsmen searched government offices in vain to seize the record. On August 14, the record was broadcast. Using formal Japanese, the public was unsure if the Emperor was surrendering or exhorting his subjects to continued resistance. The announcer assured the Japanese public that the war was over. An abortive attempt that night by Army and Navy right-wing officers to take the Emperor hostage and continue the war was stopped.

Truman accepted the surrender, and announced that the war was over on August 15th. Wild celebrations occurred in every Allied capital and most cities. US Army General Douglas C. MacArthur arrived at Atsugi Airfield that day. His staff, lightly armed with pistols, wondered if they would meet a firing squad. As they arrived, thousands of Japanese civilians surrounded the plane and gave him a warm welcome. The occupation of Japan was about to begin.

On September 2nd, 1945, a huge force of Allied ships gathered in Tokyo Bay. Aboard the battleship USS Missouri, the Japanese signed the formal surrender document, watched by thousands of Allied representatives and the crew. MacArthur presided over the signing, accompanied by his former subordinate General Wainwright, who had been a POW since 1942.

The Japanese Imperial Forces began surrendering in massed formations over the next six weeks. By October 7, 1945, when 1,000,000 Japanese Army soldiers were surrendered in Peking, many Japanese soldiers were being sent home. The Soviet POWs would wait years to return to Japan

http://www.worldwar2database.com/htm...nsurrender.htm

Lebell · 03-13-2004, 10:26 AM

I'll simply point out that your own documentation does not support your position very well.

Japan did send out feelers...but feelers are not a surrender. When Potsdam was declared, (actually pretty favorable, considering the Atlantic accord was offered), the Japanese did not jump on it, but rejected it. That your source says it was a 'misunderstanding' is dubious in my mind and not relevent either way: if the Japanese wanted to accept it, they could have made it VERY clear.

Also, your documentation clearly states that the Japanese military wanted to keep on fighting and that they were prepared to carry out a coup in order to do so.

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 10:28 AM

Strange Famous,
I have never disputed the "peace feelers" sent out by Japanese civillian authorities, or the unfortunate "ignore" incident. However, the fact was that, at the time, the power to make wartime policy rested almost entirely with the Military command, to such a degree that Emperor Hirohito himself was under threat of assassination. The situation was that of a military junta controlling the Imperial Palace from within, and those generals and admirals were totally unwilling to surrender, as evinced by the fact that no surrender was forthcoming after the bombing of Hiroshima, further buttressed by the continuing armament and training of the civillian population.
Furthermore, none of what you have cited in any way negates the figures I quoted above for a non-nuclear attack option; figures which you flatly denied without providing any sources for your denial.

In the future, when engaging in debate, whether historical or otherwise, ALWAYS cite references, especially when asked to do so. To simply assert "Well, I'm right and you're wrong, so there!" not only makes you look silly, it makes whatever arguement you're making, however credible it may be, look equally foolish. Simply saying "Well, everyone knows..." doesn't cut it.

stevie667 · 03-13-2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I am not trying to deny Japan in WWII was a vicious, aggressive, and inhumanly brutal force, responsible for terrible massacres... but the fact is in 45 Japan was beaten, they were trying to negoiate surrender, America knew this... they did not drop those bombs to save lives.

some parts of the japanese citizenship may have tried to surrender, but the fact of the matter is, the large populance wasn't.
Japan at the time had a very strict code of honour, a more evolved sense of chivalry and conduct of medievil knights if you will, which could be seen in the kamikaze raids.
now, as we all know from terrorists today, if you have fanatics who are willing to die for their cause (as the whole of the japanese army just about was), you don't get surrender, you get a slaughter.
as most people will tell you, it's hard to lose an argument gracefully, and when that argument involves several million tonnes of steal and kerosene, it's even harder. the japanese were loyal to the emporer, the emporer wasn't surrendering, so neither would they, thus you get lots of fighting.
if the americans had simply put the japanese isles into quarantine instead of invading (as would most likely of happened while the pacific forces mustered their strength for a later invasion) the natives would have dug in and fought a guerrilla war, akin to vietnam.

put simply, with less randomness, yes some of japan may have wanted to surrender, but there would have been a hell of a lot of bloodshed before that happened. in war fear is the most powerful weapon on the battlefield, you destroy the moral and mind of the enemy, they don't fight and just run away. the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki are testiments to this.

the real question should be, what if japan had known that the americans didn't have another bomb?

Lebell · 03-13-2004, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stevie667
the real question should be, what if japan had known that the americans didn't have another bomb?

Just fyi, another bomb was being assembled as the Japanese surrendered. I *think* it was targeted for Kyoto or Tokyo, but I can't remember exactly.

Ustwo · 03-13-2004, 11:41 AM

Some people read between the lines.

Others make up their own lines to suit their desires.

I'm done with this one

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 11:41 AM

the point is, Japan was weeks away from surrender - even in tersms acceptable to America, they understood the war was lost, they only wanted an end to it on some terms they could accept. One weeks diplomacy would have ended the war as quickly as two atom bombs. There were maniacs in the military who wanted to fight some kind of crazy suicide action, but the rulers of Japan understood that surrender was their only option. In fact, they never believed they could defeat America, their intention was only ever to drive America out of the pacific, but they could not do it.

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 11:46 AM

Strange Famous,
That last bit is factually untrue. In his diariest, Admiral Hirohito Yamomoto discusses at great length his decision -not- to invade the Western US, over the loud objections of his fellow officers, who were pushing for a an invasion of California and Oregon as a follow-up to the victories at the Phillipines and Wake Island. Yamomoto disagreed, saying that "we should have to fight for every inch of ground and every blade of grass. Every door would have greeted our soldiers with a gun."

Strange Famous · 03-13-2004, 12:36 PM

No one in Japan ever believed they could conquer America, trust me.

The_Dunedan · 03-13-2004, 12:44 PM

Nobody with any sense, no. However, it was only Yamomoto's persistant objections that prevented the Japanese from -trying- to do so. This is made clear in the Admiral's diaries, and also by the later recollections of Emperor Hirohito, who had been decieved by certain members of his War Cabinet, notably Gen. Tojo, to believe that such an invasion was possible.
Once again, state your source, as I have stated mine. Simply saying "I'm right, you're wrong, so there!" doesn't cut it. You say you attended University; either you flunked out on account of routinely making fallacious arguements like this, or the state of the British University system s more degraded than I realized.

03-12-2004, 02:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Did the US need to drop the Atomic Bomb in WW2? Recent conversations in another thread lead me to post this. In my research, among the many websites/books on the topic, I ran across this concise and to the point website: http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm What the author left out was that there were approximately 300,000 white slave laborers that the Japanese held in China that were slated for execution if the Japanese home island was invaded. To me, there is absolutely no question that the bombing ultimately saved lives on both sides. The Japanese were fanatical and truly thought they could repel an invasion. They were also willing to fight to the death of the last man, woman and child (it was honorable). Further, they rejected the call to surrender at Potsdam when they knew that they would be invaded otherwise. Other sites that I referenced: http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfal0.html http://www.fff.org/freedom/1195f.asp http://www.leesaunders.com/html/PacWar.htm And to be fair, a strong revisionist article which I feel the article quoted underneath deals with somewhat: http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_l...a25/zach12.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Why did President Truman drop the atomic bomb? At the end of World War II, few questioned Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans accepted the obvious reasoning: the atomic bombings brought the war to a more timely end. They did not have a problem with over one hundred thousand of the enemy being killed. After all, the Japanese attacked America, and not the other way around. In later years, however, many have begun to question the conventional wisdom of “Truman was saving lives,” putting forth theories of their own. However, when one examines the issue with great attention to the results of the atomic bombings and compares these results with possible alternatives to using said bombs, the line between truth and fiction begins to clear. Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was for the purpose of saving lives and ending the war quickly in order to prevent a disastrous land invasion. The people who are now questioning Truman’s motives are often known as Revisionists, because they attempt to revise common perceptions of history, proposing alternate theories and motives. As early as 1946 they begin to postulate new ideas, but their words only began to receive credence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Revisionists contend that Truman either had ulterior motives in the dropping of the atomic bombs or that he used these bombs on Japan for an entirely different reason, one that had nothing to do with saving lives. Most people who were alive at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, especially veterans, subscribe to the “traditional” belief that Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan for solely military reasons. A timely end to the war would mean that no land invasion of Japan is necessary. Such an invasion would have been extraordinarily costly in terms of not only American lives, but also in terms of Japanese dead. Ending the war quickly would return soldiers to their homes and allow Americans to begin a life of normality again. The Revisionists, however, believe that Truman had either partially or entirely different reasons for bombing Japan. They believe that the destruction of two Japanese cities would accomplish several things. Most obviously, it would punish the Japanese for the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the atrocious treatment of American prisoners of war. Also, an atomic bombing of Japan is also the only thing that would justify the expense of the Manhattan Project. If this expense was not justified, Truman would have faced a Congressional inquiry into the misappropriation of $2 billion. Not only did he want to avoid Congressional hearings, but he also wanted another term of office. His chances of reelection would have been nil if it were learned by the general public that he wasted money and American lives by shelving a weapon that could have ended the war more quickly. The final Revisionist claim is that Truman wanted to give the U.S. and edge in the coming Cold War by showing that he was not afraid to use these weapons of mass destruction. They also say that Truman should have chosen one of the several available ways to compel a Japanese surrender without an atomic bombing of two cities. The most obvious alternative is an American invasion of Japan. Olympic was the code-name given to the planned American invasion of Kyushu, one of the four Japanese home islands, if an atomic bomb were not available by late October. Two separate estimates exist to rate the number of American casualties that would result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the army’s chief of staff, bluntly rejected them. A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands. It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahy’s estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable. These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers. The Japanese army was already training its civilians to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. According to samurai tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for Japan and the emperor, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart. Using sharpened pikes the Japanese could easily prevent a military government from being effective in those towns which the U. S. captured. Futher, and even more brutal, was the training of young children to be “Sherman carpets.” Japanese children were to be strapped with TNT and throw themselves under American tanks, thereby dying in the most honorable way possible--by killing the enemy. It can be assumed that at least as many civilians would have died as soldiers, bringing the totals somewhere around 200,000 to four million Japanese dead, along with the 50,000 to one million American dead, totaling 250,000 to five million total dead. It was hoped that the Japanese military would capitulate once American forces occupied the Tokyo Plain, but it is possible that they would fight to the last man. On Saipan, nearly 900 Japanese killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner by Americans. Such was the Japanese philosophy to fight to the last man. If an entire nation was compelled to launch suicide attacks against the occupying army, it is conceivable that many, many millions of Japanese civilians would die. In order to make an accurate comparison between the dropping of the atomic bombs and Operation Olympic, one must be adequately knowledgeable of the destruction that took place in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bombing killed about 66,000 people and devastated 4. 4 square miles, over two-thirds of the city. The Nagasaki bombing killed about 39,000 people, and destroyed half the city, bringing the total to 105,000 Japanese dead. Of the Revisionist theories, the most common one is that Truman simply wanted to impress Stalin by dropping the atomic bomb. This is simply not the case. The most imperative thing on Truman’s mind as he let the bombings go forward was that they would prevent a land invasion of Kyushu and the massive loss of life, both American and Japanese, that would accompany such an invasion. Ironically, atomic bombs were to be used to clear the beach heads for Operation Olympic, if an invasion would have been necessary. Scientists had assured Truman, erroneously, that sufficient radiation would have cleared from the beaches to allow American soldiers to land in safety. Even if Truman had chosen to invade instead of use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would still have been used, just in a different capacity. Furthermore, if Truman had wanted to impress Stalin, he would not have told Stalin that the United States had “produced a bomb of extraordinary power.” Instead, he would have let the shock have its effect on both the Soviet Union and on Japan. The only way anyone can judge Truman’s motives in dropping the atomic bomb is by analyzing the result of his decision. No one can know, even by reading his personal diary, the exact reasons he had for using the bomb. It was likely a combination of many: punishment, justification of cost, saving lives, and ending the war as quickly as possible. However, it is evident that in the “grand scheme of things” the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly. Truman’s motives, therefore, cannot be called into question in light of the results of his decision. At least in this case, the end justifies the means. Written by David Dinkins __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-12-2004, 02:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Another excellent site: http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/...ma/ytruman.htm __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-12-2004, 02:44 PM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	My view remains, Japan was on the verge of surrender, and the only reason the bombs were dropped was to force them to surrender to America, and not jointly to America and Russia. Although, it is too often forgotten that the Japanese murdered more Chinese civilians than the Germans murdered Jews according to most historians... in a way, it is almost as if the brutal punishment beating of the carpet bombing and finally the atomic bombing against the already ruined Japan somehow distracted people from the horror of Japa's war crimes. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-12-2004, 03:04 PM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Lebell is correct on this one. Not only were the Japanese arming their entire civillian population and producing primitive ballistic weapons for deployment against allied vessels. No Surrender was the policy of the Japanese govornment, as well as a large portion of the civillian population. However, what nobody ever talks about is the amount of -Japanese- lives saved by the bomb. Prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US/British/Soviet plan for the invasion of the Home Islands called for massive airial bombardment with CHEMICAL weapons. It was believed that this was the only way to reduce the expected massive resistance from the freshly-armed civillian population, and was expected to cause a -minimum- of 6,000,000 deaths. It was believed that the fighting following the actual invasion of the Home Islands would claim an additional 1 Million Americans, 1 Million Russians, 100,000 British, and a minimum of 1 Million additional Japanese, on -top- of those who had already died in the chemical bombardment a week or so earlier. So, add it all up. Home Islands Invasion: 6,000,000 civillians dead from chemical weapons 2.1 Million dead Allied soldiers 1 Million dead Japanese combatants. Total: 9 Million dead. And these were the -lowball- estimates. The much more extensive estimates of the Soviets and British ran into the 12-15 Million dead range, according to B. H. Liddel Hart. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-12-2004, 03:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I simply do not believe any of the figures that are being quoted, they have no true basis - Japan was days away from surrender when the atomic bombs were dropped. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-12-2004, 02:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I know it may seem a bit weak, but I wish that we would have dropped one of the bombs on an uninhabited pacific island first, and did it with the worlds attention. Then threatened to drop several on various Japanese cities if we didn't secure their unconditional surrender. I think that action of bravado may have spared both Okinawa and Nagasaki.

03-12-2004, 02:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	I hate to admit it, but it was the only way to finish the war without lots more people being killed. I am just thankful that I will never be in a position to make such hard choices. By the way, I am convinced Bush to love to use a nuke sometime, he would probably justify it saying God told him to do it. So beware anyone who looks or talks in a foreign way, or anyone who is gay.

03-12-2004, 03:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	What I read at university is what I base my opinions on, you can always find websites that support the orthodoxy. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-12-2004, 04:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	Strange Famous, please direct us to where exactly you read that Japan was "just days from surrendering." Oh, and if they were "just days from surrendering," why were they still producing jet fighters in mountain sides? If Japan had stayed in till say, the Spring of 1946 when they had a full fleet of fighter jets capable of being deployed through mountain sides that protected against virtually any attack, well, we'd have a few problems. Also, with the tooth and nail fighting the marines experienced throughout most of the Pacific theater, how should the USA expect any different when invading Japanese homeland? If anything, it should have been worse than Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, or Okinawa. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

03-12-2004, 05:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I did a big paper on this many years ago. Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes damn straight. I am personally very glad they dropped those bombs, my grandfather was a US Marine who survived Iwo Jima and was waiting on transport to invade the home island. There is a very good chance I would not be here unless those bombs were dropped. Also while perhaps my very exsistance depended on those bombs, this played no part in my conclusion that the bombs needed to be dropped, I didn't even know it until after I had written my paper. Unfortunetly explaining WHY they were needed would take said paper (which is lost along with the C-64) as it is not something you can do in just a few paragraphs. But as a short answer, ANYONE who thinks the Japanese would have surrendered anytime soon without those bombs does not understand the Japanese of WWII. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-12-2004, 05:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	TBH either way you cut it the bombs would've been dropped be it legitimate or not in your eyes. Harry S. Truman had a tough decision to make, but the final choice was simple for him: do it or face impeachment. I don't remember the exact quote but it something like "Mr. President, what will you tell Congress a year from now that you had a way of ending the war and didn't use it." As for Japan - in the end the Emperor had the ultimate call. Despite arguments on both sides, its the Emperor's final choice. IMO a war council vote means shit because if the Emperor said "game over" they listened - on the flipside the bombs defenitely influenced his final choice (as did an attempted coup by hard-liners).

03-12-2004, 05:23 PM	#17 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Strange Famous, Please consult several books by your countrymen for these figures. "The Grand Alliance" is a good start, by B.H. Liddell Hart. See also "Bodygaurd of Lies," by Anthony Cave Browns. "The History of The Second World War" by Winston Churchill goes into the Japan situation in somewhat greater detail, but is a much more detailed work as a whole. The memoirs of Admiral Karl Doernitz mentions this situation, but only tangentally. See also the memoirs of Gen. Curtis LeMay and Gregory Boyington. Mr. Famous, please do more careful research on this one. The -vast- majority of research and opinion regarding this issue, both current and contemporary, supports my assertions on this. In addition, researchers from "WW2 Magazine" and the IAEA have discovered evidence that Japan had a nuclear weapons program of it's own, and may even have been close to testing a weapon. While this is speculative research at best, it is still out there. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-12-2004, 05:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	'Japan's Imperial Conspiracy' - David Bergamini Both volumes, one of the best books on Japanese politics in the build up to war, and during the war. Its a few 1000 pages I think (read it a LONG time ago), and worth the time. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-12-2004, 06:01 PM	#19 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Yeah those are good books BTW i phrased the thing wrong - the coup asssured Hirohito it was the right decision. And yes despite the "unconditional surrender" in secret we did allow Hirohito to stay at that position despite evidence he took a much bigger role in Japan than most people thought.

03-12-2004, 06:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If they were days away from surrender then why didn't they surrender after the first bomb? If the US had given a warning shot with the first bomb then they would have only had one to drop on cities. They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped so what makes you think a warning shot and 1 bomb on a city was enough to convince them?

03-12-2004, 07:51 PM	#21 (permalink)
Jizz-Fritter Crazy Location: Bowling Green, KY	Historians and politicians really want us to believe that the a-bomb was necessary, but I doubt that it was. I don't have any evidence, just MHO.

03-12-2004, 07:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It doesn't really matter anymore anyways. It is the past and times have drastically changed from them even though it is only 60 years ago. Conflict was completely revolutionized in the 20th century, over and over again.

03-13-2004, 12:36 AM	#25 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	In fact, the carpet bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic weapons. I amnot denying that an invasion of Japan would have been difficult and cost many lives - but let's at least be honest with ourselves. America's concern was not really the loss of life, it was that Russia would have half of Japan under its control in the invasion scenario. I amnot disputing though, the dificulty and loss of life involved in a land war against Japan, what I am disputing is the liklihood of this war happening - from a military point of view Japan was already beaten and virtually helpless - they were at the very point of the attack trying to negoiate a surrender - this is an easily proveable historical fact. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 01:18 AM	#27 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Well clearly then we both agree that the atomic weapons were used only to try and enforce more favourbale surrender terms for Japan. You also agree that Japan wanted an end to the war and peace with America. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 02:01 AM	#28 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Yeah the US didn't care about the loss of their soldiers lives at all....... in fact they were hoping they could have a chance to loose hundreds of thousands more but were dissapointed when Japan surrendered. Maybe they should have just bunched up their troups and dropped the bomb on their own troups since they didn't care about the loss of life.

03-13-2004, 09:16 AM	#30 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Strange Famous, I realize that this is "capitalist logic," but this entire situation is almost laughable. You have been presented with references, both current and contemporary, by well-regarded scholars who have studied this problem extensively. You have, in return, made unfounded assertions backed up by precisely.....nothing. You allege to base your opinions on books you read at University; which books? By which authors? What are these author's qualifications to write on this subject? What other books have they published? When you can present us with sources to back up your unfounded assertions, then maybe your arguements will have some credibility. However, please be advised that the nonsense printed by Pravda ( which has repeatedly denied the Ukranian Famine of the '20s ) or the World Socialist's website ( which has supported Russian genocide in Chechnya ) will most emphatically -not- be accepted as 'sources.' Real Historians only, if you please. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 10:26 AM	#32 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I'll simply point out that your own documentation does not support your position very well. Japan did send out feelers...but feelers are not a surrender. When Potsdam was declared, (actually pretty favorable, considering the Atlantic accord was offered), the Japanese did not jump on it, but rejected it. That your source says it was a 'misunderstanding' is dubious in my mind and not relevent either way: if the Japanese wanted to accept it, they could have made it VERY clear. Also, your documentation clearly states that the Japanese military wanted to keep on fighting and that they were prepared to carry out a coup in order to do so. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-13-2004, 10:28 AM	#33 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Strange Famous, I have never disputed the "peace feelers" sent out by Japanese civillian authorities, or the unfortunate "ignore" incident. However, the fact was that, at the time, the power to make wartime policy rested almost entirely with the Military command, to such a degree that Emperor Hirohito himself was under threat of assassination. The situation was that of a military junta controlling the Imperial Palace from within, and those generals and admirals were totally unwilling to surrender, as evinced by the fact that no surrender was forthcoming after the bombing of Hiroshima, further buttressed by the continuing armament and training of the civillian population. Furthermore, none of what you have cited in any way negates the figures I quoted above for a non-nuclear attack option; figures which you flatly denied without providing any sources for your denial. In the future, when engaging in debate, whether historical or otherwise, ALWAYS cite references, especially when asked to do so. To simply assert "Well, I'm right and you're wrong, so there!" not only makes you look silly, it makes whatever arguement you're making, however credible it may be, look equally foolish. Simply saying "Well, everyone knows..." doesn't cut it. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 11:41 AM	#36 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Some people read between the lines. Others make up their own lines to suit their desires. I'm done with this one __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-13-2004, 11:41 AM	#37 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	the point is, Japan was weeks away from surrender - even in tersms acceptable to America, they understood the war was lost, they only wanted an end to it on some terms they could accept. One weeks diplomacy would have ended the war as quickly as two atom bombs. There were maniacs in the military who wanted to fight some kind of crazy suicide action, but the rulers of Japan understood that surrender was their only option. In fact, they never believed they could defeat America, their intention was only ever to drive America out of the pacific, but they could not do it. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 11:46 AM	#38 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Strange Famous, That last bit is factually untrue. In his diariest, Admiral Hirohito Yamomoto discusses at great length his decision -not- to invade the Western US, over the loud objections of his fellow officers, who were pushing for a an invasion of California and Oregon as a follow-up to the victories at the Phillipines and Wake Island. Yamomoto disagreed, saying that "we should have to fight for every inch of ground and every blade of grass. Every door would have greeted our soldiers with a gun." __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

03-13-2004, 12:36 PM	#39 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	No one in Japan ever believed they could conquer America, trust me. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-13-2004, 12:44 PM	#40 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Nobody with any sense, no. However, it was only Yamomoto's persistant objections that prevented the Japanese from -trying- to do so. This is made clear in the Admiral's diaries, and also by the later recollections of Emperor Hirohito, who had been decieved by certain members of his War Cabinet, notably Gen. Tojo, to believe that such an invasion was possible. Once again, state your source, as I have stated mine. Simply saying "I'm right, you're wrong, so there!" doesn't cut it. You say you attended University; either you flunked out on account of routinely making fallacious arguements like this, or the state of the British University system s more degraded than I realized. __________________ "I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world." --Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.