Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2016, 06:54 PM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,851,979 times
Reputation: 13807

Advertisements

Speak to anyone who was an adult in 1945 and they really didn't care how Japan was defeated or how many Japanese civilians died so long as our own troops did not have to die invading Japan. From a contemporary perspective, it is irrelevant whether it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria or the dropping of the atomic bombs.

For myself, I don't think it was just the bombs or just the invasion of Manchuria. Prior to these, Japan knew she had lost the war. The issue was under what terms she would concede. I think it was a combination of these events that led to unconditional surrender. And that fact saved the lives of tens of thousands of Allied troops, Japanese troops and Japanese civilians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2016, 08:02 PM
 
2,801 posts, read 3,148,812 times
Reputation: 2701
NJGOAT did it again. Very thoughtful and convincing argument! Congrats and thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Japan
15,292 posts, read 7,704,026 times
Reputation: 10005
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
If you had family that served and even died in that war (as i have) you would probably have a very different opinion. This was a nation that showed through it actions that it had no regard for western values of humanity.
If Japan's level of cruelty exceeded the West's during that time it wasn't by much, and of all the horrific actions undertaken, the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian population centers was the most extreme. The irony here is startling. You justify the most inhumane single actions of the war on the grounds that the enemy was inhumane.


Quote:
A group that should have given thanks to Harry Truman literally until the day they died were those GI's designated to invade Japan. As NJGOAT's guide showed in great detail, a 1,000,000 U.S. casualties was the prediction.
Who do you suppose designated those GIs to invade Japan in the first place if not the commander in chief? People talk about the invasion as if it was a foregone conclusion and there were no other options. But Japan at that point was entirely contained, with no ability to project power. To sacrifice a million lives (assuming that figure is anywhere near accurate) in a war that was already all but won would have been foolhardy. There was no reason to rush into the Japanese mainland at that cost. The allies could have waited it out and certainly would do so in a similar situation today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Japan
15,292 posts, read 7,704,026 times
Reputation: 10005
(cont.)


If an invasion of Japan really would have cost a million allied soldiers their lives, was it even a realistic option at the time? How could such a massive sacrifice have been justified given that Japan was contained and no longer a threat?


So what were the realistic options in the summer of 1945?


A: Continue blockading and bombing Japan with conventional weapons until it agreed to acceptable terms of surrender or was sufficiently weakened to make an invasion easier.


B: Increase pressure on Japan to surrender by demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb on a test site.


C: Apply maximum pressure by nuking cities as soon as it was feasible.


We chose option C for a variety of strategic reasons, but not because it was the only thing we could have done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 05:21 PM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,767,018 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
(cont.)


If an invasion of Japan really would have cost a million allied soldiers their lives, was it even a realistic option at the time? How could such a massive sacrifice have been justified given that Japan was contained and no longer a threat?


So what were the realistic options in the summer of 1945?


A: Continue blockading and bombing Japan with conventional weapons until it agreed to acceptable terms of surrender or was sufficiently weakened to make an invasion easier.


B: Increase pressure on Japan to surrender by demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb on a test site.


C: Apply maximum pressure by nuking cities as soon as it was feasible.


We chose option C for a variety of strategic reasons, but not because it was the only thing we could have done.
Perhaps NGOAT'S guide need to be expanded. A and B were not viable options because of these reasons:

A.) Continue blockading - For how long? 1950? 1955? The blockade was costing both Japanese and Allied lives, Japan still occupied areas of China and other parts of Asia, land battles still occurred. Every month that the war continued, Japanese forces were causing the death's of some 100k to 200k noncombatants a month in China and elsewhere. On the home island, Japanese were starving and getting killed from conventional bombing attacks. If the argument was to not use the atomic bomb and also to delay the invasion to save lives, the opposite would have occurred. The only results, it would have been cleaner - you would feel better that a million more died by starvation, conventional bombing, and the massacres of unknown Chinese civilians.

B.) Demonstrations - There are multiple reasons why this was not practical. What if it failed? If it didn't fail, the Japanese would have likely thought it was a trick, or thought it was not lethal. What if they called our bluff, we were less one atomic bomb and the lead times for production were such that it would delay the war further. But the biggest thing of course is the we obliterated Hiroshima and the Japanase military STILL didn't care. Even after the second, it took almost a coup in the Japanese government to stop the war. Clearly, undeniably, one thing we can be sure of after the fact - a demonstration would not have accomplished anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 05:27 PM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,767,018 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
If Japan's level of cruelty exceeded the West's during that time it wasn't by much, and of all the horrific actions undertaken, the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian population centers was the most extreme. The irony here is startling. You justify the most inhumane single actions of the war on the grounds that the enemy was inhumane.
The people that make this argument never seem to get it. This was a total war, the sad reality of war during this period. Both sides engaged in strategic bombing campaigns of population centers.

But let's be clear of the difference here - Japan engaged in these horrific acts for a population that was surrendered. The US engaged in the dropping of the atomic bomb on a population that was still at war.

What did Japan do after the city of Nanking surrendered? Essentially murdered and raped at will, to the cost of some 250,000 murders (more then were killed in the atomic bombings by the way).

What did the US do after Japan surrendered? Ceased hostilities, helped rebuild their country.

And that, sir, is the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 07:45 PM
 
Location: SouthEast
166 posts, read 241,440 times
Reputation: 344
I've often lamented that having a populous that is so unaffected by the ravages of war is both a blessing and a curse.
There are very few people who understand what total war means and fewer still (with each passing day) that have lived it.


One small example of this is that our own population has only the faintest idea of what war actually is but feel as though they are able to correctly criticize from their position of largess.
America is not at war, America is at Walmart. The US Military is at war.


From a different perspective imagine you suddenly find yourself in a fight with another individual in lets say, a parking garage. You trade punches, you wrestle around on the ground jockeying for position. At some point you realize that this person you are locked in struggle with intends to kill you. You have to win. Its not as if you can simply say "OK, you win. I give up." And they take your wallet and car and drive off. They are there to kill you. You will do anything at that point to win I would imagine. If you do win you wouldn't kill this person, you would likely call the police.
That's the best summary of total war at the personal level I can think of.




NJGOAT, Great discussion, thanks so much for the read. I love WW2 history but tend to focus more on the individual campaigns and battles. Not to distract but Neptune's Inferno and An Army at Dawn are two of my favorite reads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 09:06 PM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,851,979 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Evil View Post
I've often lamented that having a populous that is so unaffected by the ravages of war is both a blessing and a curse.
There are very few people who understand what total war means and fewer still (with each passing day) that have lived it.


One small example of this is that our own population has only the faintest idea of what war actually is but feel as though they are able to correctly criticize from their position of largess.
America is not at war, America is at Walmart. The US Military is at war.


From a different perspective imagine you suddenly find yourself in a fight with another individual in lets say, a parking garage. You trade punches, you wrestle around on the ground jockeying for position. At some point you realize that this person you are locked in struggle with intends to kill you. You have to win. Its not as if you can simply say "OK, you win. I give up." And they take your wallet and car and drive off. They are there to kill you. You will do anything at that point to win I would imagine. If you do win you wouldn't kill this person, you would likely call the police.
That's the best summary of total war at the personal level I can think of.




NJGOAT, Great discussion, thanks so much for the read. I love WW2 history but tend to focus more on the individual campaigns and battles. Not to distract but Neptune's Inferno and An Army at Dawn are two of my favorite reads.
You are so right.

My mother grew up in the UK. She was 13 when war broke out in 1939. She has described to me the whistle of the bombs falling as she huddled in the Anderson shelter in the garden. She told me how they had to sleep in a church hall because an unexploded German land mine was awaiting bomb disposal and how, if it had exploded, she would have been killed. Then there was her Uncle who was captured at Dunkirk or my father's cousin who died in a Japanese POW camp of malnutrition. There were school friends, family friends and boyfriends who went to war and didn't come back.

My mother passed away 18 months ago. Till her dying day she didn't have a good word to say about the Germans or the Japanese. I asked her about the atomic bombs and she said she didn't care how many Japanese died so long as just one Allied life was saved.

That is the reality of total war and, if they could have, the Japanese and the Germans would have done it to us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:34 PM
 
Location: So. of Rosarito, Baja, Mexico
6,987 posts, read 21,844,254 times
Reputation: 7007
I was in the Canadian Reserve Army in 1945 and we were shown captured 8mm German film that showed British soldiers with their hands on their heads being marched on the beach at Dunkirk.

German soldiers were prodding with bayonets and laughing towards the camera.

In the back ground were bodies floating in on waves and you could read the unit shoulder insignia that was common with the British and Canadian troops.

I was in the Reserve Unit while our main unit fought with valor in France etc.

My unit RHLI (Royal Hamilton Light Infantry)

I may have seen a relative of somebody posting here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2019, 05:11 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,460 posts, read 16,551,453 times
Reputation: 29644
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I don't have the patience to wade through the quagmire that is this thread:

//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...hiroshima.html

Especially after posting volumes in these threads covering many of the topics and claims about the bombings:

//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...o-8-15-am.html
//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...surrender.html
//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...-nagasaki.html

What I am going to do hear is lay out some of the oft repeated claims and mis-statements made and try to provide some relevance and perspective to them. Please feel free to use this as a resource in future discussions about the atomic bombings. I am getting tired of re-hashing the same conversation over and over again especially when many of the participants can't take the time to do their own research or are blatantly twisting facts to suit their agenda. I have organized them by general topics based on things I often hear said. My responses are contained in the "spoiler tags" to keep the post organized.
Excellent historical guide. I have bookmarked it. And printed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
well, I am mixed Japanese/Hawaiian/German/Irish. I've stayed in Japan for a total of 2 years.

People in the U.S. don't really care what happened 60-70 years ago, and neither do Japanese folks. Japan has a solid, stable society, beautiful culture. When Economy gets bad, people get political, it is human nature.

I think for the most part, Japan has come to terms with the past. Most people don't deny the history is there. But most countries in the world have some bad history, but they don't make it a part of daily life.

Well, obviously victims carrying the hatred and baggage a little bit longer, and that's fair. It explains why Chinese, well, some of them are still so angry at Japan. It is understandable, I guess.
Successful people and cultures don't carry "victim" baggage very heavily. Even if the atrocities are remembered they also succeed. The Jews are a great example, as are the Japanese. And Singapore is successful despite victimization by the British, the Japanese and the Malays.

Last edited by jbgusa; 03-03-2019 at 05:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top