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.
It's true that the Japanese committed a great number of atrocities during the war, but if you look to their colonies, they created prosperity. Taiwan flourished so much under Japanese rule that many Chinese preferred them over the Chineses nationalists that took their place. Even during their short rule in Manchukuo, the area prospered. If the Japanese had actually succeeded in creating the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere, East Asia would have seen an economic boom. China certainly would have fared better under Japanese rule than they did under communism.
There are always people who prefer being colonized. It is not unusual. But it is simply false to claim that is the mainstream idea. Most Taiwanese people did/do not prefer Japan over the Nationalists.
August 7, 1945 (dates are in Japan) the Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
August 10, 1945 the Atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
August 12, 1945 Japan offered surrender with the sole provision that the Emperor of Japan would remain the Emperor and sovereign ruler of Japan. The allies rejected this offer and counteroffered that the Emperor could remain on the thrown as a figurehead subject to the Supreme Allied Commander. This was not a trivial difference, the Japanese offer was that the Emperor would continue to rule Japan, the allied counteroffer was that the allied supreme commander would rule Japan.
August 15, 1945 the Japanese accepted the counter offer.
So, in a period of about a week, Japan went from not considering surrender to surrendering. What happened in the meantime? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with atomic weapons.
So Atomic bombs definitely end the war and saved thousands of lives.
Regarding Normandy. This is just my opinion. WW2 STILL could have been won without the D-Day Landing. This said, The defeat of Operation Overlord would have given National Socialist Germany a fresh lease on life. And in the end, the first atomic bomb to be dropped in anger might have destroyed not Hiroshima but Berlin.
I agree with this mostly.
After the campaigns in the Pacific it was clear a land invasion of Japan was going to cost upwards of millions of American lives. The Japanese saw surrender as the most dishonorable thing one could do and their actions in the Pacific theatre confirmed this. Unlike the Germans, Japanese soldiers not willing to surrender and like a cornered animal, would fight to the death (or commit suicide).
There is some debate among historians regarding whether it was right to reject the conditional surrender of Japan, since after all Hirohito remained Emperor and was never prosecuted for war crimes anyway. Also, the tribunals in the East were far more abbreviated than the Nuremberg trials and I personally think the Japanese were not fully prosecuted for their horrendous crimes in places like China. There is also some debate as to whether the choice of civilian targets was the correct one.
At any rate, it brought a swift end to the war and was a better alternative for both Japan and the US to a land invasion.
After the campaigns in the Pacific it was clear a land invasion of Japan was going to cost upwards of millions of American lives. The Japanese saw surrender as the most dishonorable thing one could do and their actions in the Pacific theatre confirmed this. Unlike the Germans, Japanese soldiers not willing to surrender and like a cornered animal, would fight to the death (or commit suicide).
There is some debate among historians regarding whether it was right to reject the conditional surrender of Japan, since after all Hirohito remained Emperor and was never prosecuted for war crimes anyway. Also, the tribunals in the East were far more abbreviated than the Nuremberg trials and I personally think the Japanese were not fully prosecuted for their horrendous crimes in places like China. There is also some debate as to whether the choice of civilian targets was the correct one.
At any rate, it brought a swift end to the war and was a better alternative for both Japan and the US to a land invasion.
Agreed except for that taking down Japan would've cost millions of US lives since I'm 100 percent sure our bombers would've burnt Japan to the ground 1st before any kind of invasion. Especially since a LOT of Japanese cities were "fire storms" just waiting to be lit up.
Agreed except for that taking down Japan would've cost millions of US lives since I'm 100 percent sure our bombers would've burnt Japan to the ground 1st before any kind of invasion. Especially since a LOT of Japanese cities were "fire storms" just waiting to be lit up.
Well you may be right. I'm just thinking in terms of the state of mind of the US government at the time they made the decision. They may have been on the conservative side but they knew they were dealing with a totally different enemy than the Germans.
Well you may be right. I'm just thinking in terms of the state of mind of the US government at the time they made the decision. They may have been on the conservative side but they knew they were dealing with a totally different enemy than the Germans.
I think it's interesting. Did it not matter what Hitler did, because there was always an atomic bomb waiting for him at the end of the day? Or would the US have hesitated to drop an atomic bomb on Berlin, no matter what Hitler did? Luckily we do not know the answer to that...
I think it's interesting. Did it not matter what Hitler did, because there was always an atomic bomb waiting for him at the end of the day? Or would the US have hesitated to drop an atomic bomb on Berlin, no matter what Hitler did? Luckily we do not know the answer to that...
I honestly do think that the fact that German soldiers were more willing to capitulate played a big role in it. It seems like such a minor factor but I think it played a big role. Of course, the Soviet Union also did a lot of the work in Germany, which made our job easier (in the short term). Of course, it did not change the fact that Germany was still ruined by the invasion. Dresden for example was pretty much razed to the ground. By the time the Allies reached Berlin the Nazis had resorted to using child soldiers.
^Also, I would point out that Germany never attacked US soil. And nobody knew about the magnitude of the Nazi atrocities until afterward. The level of hatred in the American populace toward the Japanese after Pearl Harbor was unprecedented and played a role in the decision. Japan, after all, brought the US into the war to begin with.
Those are some bits and pieces, I think, of why we did not drop an atomic bomb on Germany.
There is some debate among historians regarding whether it was right to reject the conditional surrender of Japan, since after all Hirohito remained Emperor and was never prosecuted for war crimes anyway. Also, the tribunals in the East were far more abbreviated than the Nuremberg trials and I personally think the Japanese were not fully prosecuted for their horrendous crimes in places like China. There is also some debate as to whether the choice of civilian targets was the correct one.
...
Yah, the US broke the Japanese diplomatic & military codes. The information leaked (late in the war), & some Congressman just could not keep his mouth shut. & one of the newspapers printed the story. The IJ promptly changed their codes - I don't know if we broke them again - & destroyed all minutes, records, dossiers, war orders, military records - everything they could. That's one reason we only prosecuted senior IJ military officers, I think. We didn't have the documentary evidence we needed to bring charges against everyone we would have wanted to.
As for the war crimes in China - the KMT & the Communists in China may have been in their last battles by then - the KMT had tried for a couple of years to fight the IJ in northeastern China - around Beijing? - in the mid- to late-1930s - but they lost their best units in the fighting, & the KMT were eventually driven back. After WWII (& possibly during - depends on who you ask), the KMT's emphasis was on fighting Mao & the Communists, not on righting old history against the IJ - that threat was over. Likely the KMT would have had to pursue the charges, I don't remember if the Communists were involved in fighting the IJ there or not.
judging history with todays view point, even with historical sources, only mean you dont have the real feel of what was going on then. you have a photograph essentially.
Or newspapers
Or letters
Or declassified intelligence
Or copies of speeches given by officials
Yep, all we have to judge the past is only a "photograph."
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.
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.
IJ codes & China conflict
