# Hiroshima and Nagasaki - did they really end the war.



## JoeB131 (Aug 9, 2011)

Not really.  

This is one of the myths we Americans like to tell ourselves, but the Japanese Surrender had a lot more to do with the fact the USSR entered the Pacific War.  

Japan's goal in 1945 was not to win. They knew they were done. It was to get a favorable peace.  One that let them keep some of their gains in China.  When the USSR entered the war on August 8th, and started rolling up their Armies in a few days, they knew they had no real options.  Eithere Japan could be entirely occuppied by the US, or partioned like Germany.  

And there were enough horror stories about what the soviets were doing in East Germany to make that an easy pick. 

The bombs, on the other hand, didn't do that much damage. They were relatively low kilotons, we had devastated Japans cities with conventional bombing and killed far more people that way.


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 9, 2011)

I lived on Kyushu, close to Nagasaki. Been there many times. Beautiful city (today). 

Trust me - the bombs did MUCH damage. 90,000&#8211;166,000 killed in Hiroshima, 60,000&#8211;80,000 killed in Nagasaki

You don't find that significant ?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 9, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> I lived on Kyushu, close to Nagasaki. Been there many times. Beautiful city (today).
> 
> Trust me - the bombs did MUCH damage. 90,000166,000 killed in Hiroshima, 60,00080,000 killed in Nagasaki
> 
> You don't find that significant ?



I think his point was that we could have done as much damage with conventional bombing. Like the firebombing of Tokyo. They didn't surrender after that one


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > I lived on Kyushu, close to Nagasaki. Been there many times. Beautiful city (today).
> ...



Government notes FROM the Japanese Government at the time prove conclusively that the Emperor forced the Army running the Government to surrender after the second atomic bomb. And even with their LIVING GOD demanding a surrender with no terms, the Imperial Army mounted a Coup to prevent his recorded words from being broadcast and to prevent the surrender.

Prior to the bombs Japan's Government DEMANDED terms that were not surrender. Even the OP admits that.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 9, 2011)

Nukes ended the war.  Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting.  WWII was devastating on a global scale.  The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.  

Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be "_extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties._"

The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima gave indications of how high the casualty rates would be on both sides.   We've lost about 7000 American deaths in 10 years of fighting  in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Can anyone imagine the calamity of losing that many in a single battle with even bigger battles on the horizon?   If given the choice to drop a new weapon as a means to force surrender or invade and incur tens of thousands of more dead Americans, I wouldn't have to think twice on my choice.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 9, 2011)

Divine.Wind said:


> Nukes ended the war.  Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting.  WWII was devastating on a global scale.  The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.
> 
> Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be "_extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties._"
> 
> The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima gave indications of how high the casualty rates would be on both sides.   We've lost about 7000 American deaths in 10 years of fighting.  Can anyone imagine the calamity of losing that many in a single battle with even bigger battles on the horizon?   If given the choice to drop a new weapon as a means to force surrender or invade and incur tens of thousands of more dead Americans, I wouldn't have to think twice on my choice.



The US also bluffed by implying they had many more bombs. The Japanese were facing destruction against a foe they couldn't fight back against. The B-29's flew too high for effective AA fire, and were almost as fast at that altitude as the best Japanese fighter availible. Even if they could try to shoot it down, all the US would have to do is send 50 bombers out, with only 1 carrying the A-bomb in the middle of the formation. 

I think it was the inability to fight back is what made the Emperor force a surrender.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2011)

You opened a big can 'O worms with this one joe. The winner writes the history books. The fact is that Japan was defeated before we dropped the Bombs. The Bushido holdouts were trying to negotiate a surrender but Harry Truman wouldn't negotiate because of FDR. Before he died the possibly brain damaged FDR decreed that the US would only accept "unconditional surrender". Japan was trying to negotiate terms of surrender through Stalin and the sticky point was the preservation of the emperor. Ironically Hirohito was not hanged and we dropped the bombs anyway. Civilian life was cheap during WW2. It's hard to imagine killing tens of thousands of civilians in a fireball and having another ten thousand die of radiation poisoning in order to force the military to surrender but that's the way it happened.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 9, 2011)

Oh gosh really?

Those bombs did an immense amount of damage. And they shook the national psyche. I've been to Japan many times. And the war is still very fresh in the minds of the Japanese.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 9, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.
> 
> This is one of the myths we Americans like to tell ourselves, but the Japanese Surrender had a lot more to do with the fact the USSR entered the Pacific War.
> 
> ...




The nukes we dropped on Japan didn't doo that much damage? you are either high or a fuckin idiot, maybe both in your case.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> You opened a big can 'O worms with this one joe. The winner writes the history books. The fact is that Japan was defeated before we dropped the Bombs. The Bushido holdouts were trying to negotiate a surrender but Harry Truman wouldn't negotiate because of FDR. Before he died the possibly brain damaged FDR decreed that the US would only accept "unconditional surrender". Japan was trying to negotiate terms of surrender through Stalin and the sticky point was the preservation of the emperor. Ironically Hirohito was not hanged and we dropped the bombs anyway. Civilian life was cheap during WW2. It's hard to imagine killing tens of thousands of civilians in a fireball and having another ten thousand die of radiation poisoning in order to force the military to surrender but that's the way it happened.



Yes, Japan was practially defeated, but their leadership would not admit to it. They were actually asking for 4 conditions, not just the emperor being able to remain in power. This included any war crime trials to be done by the Japanese themselves, no occupation of Japan proper, no disarming of its remaining soliders, and finally no effect to the emperor's power. 

The allies were going for the same conditions they gave the Germans, and the Japanese were not having any of it.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2011)

martybegan said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > You opened a big can 'O worms with this one joe. The winner writes the history books. The fact is that Japan was defeated before we dropped the Bombs. The Bushido holdouts were trying to negotiate a surrender but Harry Truman wouldn't negotiate because of FDR. Before he died the possibly brain damaged FDR decreed that the US would only accept "unconditional surrender". Japan was trying to negotiate terms of surrender through Stalin and the sticky point was the preservation of the emperor. Ironically Hirohito was not hanged and we dropped the bombs anyway. Civilian life was cheap during WW2. It's hard to imagine killing tens of thousands of civilians in a fireball and having another ten thousand die of radiation poisoning in order to force the military to surrender but that's the way it happened.
> ...



Regardless of the points of contention, Truman refused to even talk to the Japanese while Stalin was lying to them and hoping to gobble up territory. It's hard to imagine today but our own government was hanging on to a antiquated racist opinion of the Japanese. Racism was one of the reasons the US was so unprepared for Pearl Harbor and the Philippine surrender. Elected officials actually thought that Japan couldn't build a ship that would float or a plane that would fly and the nearsighted Japanese couldn't fly anyway. It was the conventional thinking and even the eggheads who built the Bomb were dying to try it out on an inferior race.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



The allies gave the Potsdam declration, which stated thier terms. The Japanese refused it. Yes there was racsim, but there was racism both ways. The Japanese as a race we pretty damn full of themselves as well. Even then the US/Japan fighting was second in ferocity and racial hatred. The German/Russian front was far worse, and all those people were white. 

You are also confusing popular opinion vs. government/military opinion. While the military did not think the Japanese would attack pearl harbor, they were assuming an attack would happen in the Indonesia area, and they figured it would be sucessful. They did underestimate thier ability and materials, but it had just as much to do with seeing Japan as a relatively new industrial nation as it did with the background racial thoughts of the time.


----------



## editec (Aug 9, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.
> 
> This is one of the myths we Americans like to tell ourselves, but the Japanese Surrender had a lot more to do with the fact the USSR entered the Pacific War.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds plausible but I think it's wrong.

Japan was _trying_ to surrender before the bombs dropped.

Once those bombs took out two cities, the Emporer of Japan had more than enough political power (and yes politics mattered even in Japan) to accept surrender without condition.


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 9, 2011)

Well, it's a good thing they quit, because the U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a three more in October.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 9, 2011)

Where were all these brave arm chair Generals during the war? Our Military really could have used guys like ginscpy and joeb131.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 9, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Well, it's a good thing they quit, because the U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a three more in October.



Considering that the US is the only country who has nuked anyone, I think it's ironic we're telling other countries what nukes they can have.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 9, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's a good thing they quit, because the U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a three more in October.
> ...



Don't worry if Germany, Russia and Japan had nukes back during the war they most definently would have used them with no issues.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2011)

martybegan said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I'm talking about government/military opinion.  Inherent racism wasn't the only reason but it was a big factor in using Atomic weapons against the Japanese and it is seldom addressed. There was no plan to use the Bomb on Europeans who looked like us even though the casualty numbers were staggering after Normandy. When you factor in a weak relatively cluless president handpicked by the DNC to replace the dying FDR while the more experienced and moderate V.P. was on vacation it's not suprising that "give 'em hell" Harry Truman would authorize the use of the Bomb while refusing to negotiate surrender terms.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



The Bomb was not availible for use in Europe, as the war there ended before it could be tested. Also in Europe the Germans had no hope of stopping any of the allied thrusts. All the forces were on land, and the cohesion of the german forces was disintegrating.

I don't agree with your assesment of Truman either. Remember we refused to negotiate with the Germans as well. If the war in europe was static when a bomb was availible I don't see anyone holding back dropping one on Berlin to end the war. We had already bombed the living hell out of most of thier industrial cities the old fashioned way anyway.

You have to remember that since no one had ever seen one before, a nuclear bomb was just another explosive device used to defeat the enemy. I did not have the negative connotation we see now, as no one knew what the hell it really was. 

It was an allied decsion not to negotiate with Japan and to only accept unconditional surrender. This had far more to do with the lessons of WWI than with any inherent racsim. 

I


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2011)

martybegan said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Imagine a hick former clothing store manager from Missouri with a high school education having his finger on the trigger of Atomic weapons. When he woke up one morning in 1945 and found himself president of the United States Truman admitted that he had no clue. Maybe that's what democrats intended when they ran him for V.P. while FDR was dying or mentally unfit due to a series of strokes. The media never saw a democrat they didn't like so they inflated Truman's legacy even though he couldn't even win a primary for a second full term and dropped out of politics. Japan was always the intended target for a test of Atomic weapons on humans. The book "First into Nagasaki" was compiled from a series of articles written by Pulitzer winner George Weller who worked for the A.P. Every article about the Atomic devistation was spiked by MacArther (who was appointed the new emperor of Japan) and was never printed. Weller's son found carbon copies after his father's death and they were published.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 9, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oh gosh really?
> 
> Those bombs did an immense amount of damage. And they shook the national psyche. I've been to Japan many times. And the war is still very fresh in the minds of the Japanese.



True, but not enought to admit to the rape of Nanking or turning Korean women into sex slaves.  They just bitch about being nuked. 

I spent over a year in the region including a visit to Hiroshima.  You'll pardon me if I don't pity them for the way the war turned out or how we became involved in it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 9, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



This is the only logical narrative from all the facts we know.  The Japanese military before 6 August 1945 had no intention of surrendering, the Emperor used the incredible devastation of the bombs to force a truce and surrender, and certain army elements tried to force a coup to avoid surrender.

Yes, the nukes were instrumental to the surrender.

Any other narrative does not include all the factors.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



whitehall has removed any doubt about his dedication to untruths and fabrication.  For shame.


----------



## daveman (Aug 9, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's a good thing they quit, because the U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a three more in October.
> ...


We used them responsibly and wisely.  Their use prevented far more deaths than they caused.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 9, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.
> 
> This is one of the myths we Americans like to tell ourselves, but the Japanese Surrender had a lot more to do with the fact the USSR entered the Pacific War.
> 
> ...




No is is not a myth and any WWII vet that was there and is still alive will tell you so. 
So will any Japanese that lived through it and is still alive today
I don't know why you young buy into the lies and not the reality that is taught to you.


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Aug 9, 2011)

We only had two bombs which were serendipitously dropped at the correct altitude, ie the wave resonance effect and all that. Otherwise the Japanese would have just laughed at us, said " So what.You guys got a hot bomb" and kept on fighting.
The Russians involvement in the war was part of the reason the Japanese decided to quit fighting, but there was more to it than that. The Japanese were dissappearing as a people.
3,000 fighting men at Tarawa. They uniformly did not surrender
27,000 at Saipan
17,000 on Guam
12,000 on pelieliu
upwards of 600,000 men on the Phillipines
21,000 on Iwo Jima
100,000 on Okinawa
Not counting the losses on Guadalcanal,  New Guinea, the Phillipine Sea, Leyte Gulf, the 100,000 dead in one night in the firebombing of Tokyo, March, 1945, or the 65 other Japanese Cities that were also hit by "Hurricanes of flame". The Japanese Home Islands were cut off, isolated from the rest of their Empire. They had no food, no fuel for warmth or production, no raw materiels, no clothing, no shelter.
Hirohito rightly thought he was looking at the extinction of the Japanese people.
"You cannot win at the negotiating table what you cannot win on the battlefield"
"There is no substitute for overwhelming force"


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Jakie, maybe you and I had a different educational experience but you don't get to words like fabrication and shame unless you prove me wrong.


----------



## daveman (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Fakey doesn't do proof.  He thinks his say-so should be sufficient for us proles.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 9, 2011)

Frankly I'm suprised that some people still think that nuking civilians in a fireball is legitimate payback for military atrosities. That argument should be off the table.


----------



## daveman (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Frankly I'm suprised that some people still think that nuking civilians in a fireball is legitimate payback for military atrosities. That argument should be off the table.



We didn't have precision weapons back then.  How many civilians would have died in an invasion of the home islands?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2011)

whitehall said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Another red herring. The Atomic Bombs were not used on Germany because they SURRENDERED BEFORE they were ready. Japan made no real effort to surrender. She demanded that the war just end and Japan keep everything she had before the war started including in China.

The demand did not change even after one atomic bomb. After the second the Army which ran the Government still refused to surrender and only the decision of the Emperor ended the war. The Emperor who was considered to be a living God. And the Army attempted a Coup to stop even that.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 10, 2011)

bitterlyclingin said:


> Not counting the losses on Guadalcanal,  New Guinea, the Phillipine Sea, Leyte Gulf, the 100,000 dead in one night in the firebombing of Tokyo, March, 1945, or the 65 other Japanese Cities that were also hit by "Hurricanes of flame". The Japanese Home Islands were cut off, isolated from the rest of their Empire. They had no food, no fuel for warmth or production, no raw materiels, no clothing, no shelter.
> Hirohito rightly thought he was looking at the extinction of the Japanese people.
> "You cannot win at the negotiating table what you cannot win on the battlefield"
> "There is no substitute for overwhelming force"



I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from history because you are not looking through it with the eyes of a Japanese soldier of the era.  Japanese are tough people.  The reasons those casualty rates were so high is because they don't surrender.  This isn't simply because they are either very brave or very foolish, but because they truly walk the walk when it comes to believing in an afterlife.  Lots of American Christians talk the talk about heaven and the afterlife, but many cling to life like there was no tomorrow.   Japanese, especially of that period, would guard their life, but realize that it was only temporary and that there were more important things than a small extension of their mortal being.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2011)

daveman said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Whitehall thinks the Japanese did not surrender due to the bombs and you support him?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Frankly I'm suprised that some people still think that nuking civilians in a fireball is legitimate payback for military atrosities. That argument should be off the table.



We did not drop the bombs to kill civilians, both targets were legit military targets. It was not about payback it was about ending the war quickly BEFORE an allied Invasion of the Japanese Islands. An allied invasion that would be mostly American.


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 10, 2011)

*SOW THE WIND.........*








*AND REAP THE WHIRLWIND..........*


----------



## martybegan (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Frankly I'm suprised that some people still think that nuking civilians in a fireball is legitimate payback for military atrosities. That argument should be off the table.



The only difference between the two nukes used and the firebombing of both German and Japanese cities was the fact it only took 1 bomber instead of 500. We gutted cities in both theatres for years before we dropped the A-bombs, and killed far more people, both german and japanese with conventional high exlposives and incindiaries that with nukes.

Maybe there was a feeling of "payback" but the whole pacific war was about payback after pearl harbor, and It was the Japanese who made it personal by deciding on a sneak attack prior to the declaration of war.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Where does what I said show any support for Whitehall?


----------



## editec (Aug 10, 2011)

Of course we'll never really know, but sans an unconditional surrender we'd have invaded the Japanese main Islands and I SUSPECT that the total loss of innocent civilians would have been magnitudes higher than the total losses that came from the two atomic bombs.

And even if that was NOT the case, it is indisputable that the loss of US troops would have been much much higher than it was.

And saving US servicement's lives was,_ and should have been_, the most important issue on Truman's mind.

The Japanese started the war and their troops behavior in China and SE Asia was an ongoing crime against humanity _that was sanctioned by their leaders_.

I have no sympathy whatever for the argument the USA ought to have not used both bombs to bring that war to an end as soon as possible.

Had I been POTUD before VE day, and if the conditions for the end to the war against Germany had been similar to that we faced against Japan?

I'd have nuked Germans cities, too.

This is not about racism, this is about unconditional WAR against _criminal regimes_ whose history of_ crimes against humanity_ made ending those regimes a a MORAL imperitive for mankind.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

editec said:


> Of course we'll never really know, but sans an unconditional surrender we'd have invaded the Japanese main Islands and I SUSPECT that the total loss of innocent civilians would have been magnitudes higher than the total losses that came from the two atomic bombs.
> 
> And even if that was NOT the case, it is indisputable that the loss of US troops would have been much much higher than it was.
> 
> ...


Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[10] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposeswhich included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the U.S. "half a million" dead.[41]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[42]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[43] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[44] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[45]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[46] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[47] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[47]
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[48] and troop transports off Ky&#363;sh&#363; would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmerwar correspondent for the Los Angeles Timessaid half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000-1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[49]
The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand U.S. soldiers who died after the battle indirectly from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the U.S. would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War IIincluding the Korean and Vietnam Warshave not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[50] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[50]​


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 10, 2011)

editec said:


> *Of course we'll never really know*, but sans an unconditional surrender we'd have invaded the Japanese main Islands and I SUSPECT that the total loss of innocent civilians would have been magnitudes higher than the total losses that came from the two atomic bombs.



Great scott, get a clue.  Operation Olympic, the invasion of Honshu, would have been proceded by up to six months of bombing everything man-made by B-29s.  Duh, would that kill any civilians?  Also, the japanese had organized every man and woman between about 15 and 60 to fight in a sort of militia, around 28 million people, armed with such as bamboo pikes, to help repell the invaders.  Hmmmm - maybe a casualty or two there?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You have been proven wrong by other posters commentary.  You and Weller are wrong.

The use of the bombs were essential for the Emperor to wrest power from the military.

No, the Japanese government was not about to surrender.  Any such proposition is not supported by the facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

daveman said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Daveman is being silly as usual.  He does not understand that position has to fit the narrative of the facts, not the facts fit the narrative.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

daveman's jealousies and pettishness leads him to making many foolish statements.


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Aug 10, 2011)

"War is the application of force.
And to that 'force' there is no limit, say the philosophers of war"

"Victory at Sea", Episode "Two if by Sea", March 8, 1953, NBC Television Network
But that was before the era of ownership by the politically correct, Obama obeissant, GE,  Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, when the sons of the network heads served their country alongside the children of the people from "Flyover Country", the ones we find today still "Bitterly clinging to their God and their guns", and these sons of the network heads were proud enough of their service accomplishments to force their father's network to produce a documentary of their achievements.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

I cling to guns and God, but I have no fear of those who don't.  We are not going back, ever, to the way things were in late fifties and early sixties.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Yet another unsubstantiated claim by Fakey.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman's jealousies and pettishness leads him to making many foolish statements.


And who am I allegedly jealous of, kid?  You?




Once again, you will refuse to accept that I'm laughing AT you.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Whitehall certainly thinks the Atomic bombs caused Japan to surrender then just as they would cause Afghanistan to surrender today but they were not necessary. Japan was defeated in the air, on land and at sea and we were raiding Japan in daylight raids killing civilians with fire bombs. The Bomb was close to reality from 1943 and there is no evidence that it was ever intended to be used in Europe. Japan was always the assumed target. Our government's racism toward Japan is what prevented us from reasonable preparation for war in the Pacific even when we knew war was iminent. US citizens of Japanese descent on the West Coast were rounded up and placed behind barbed wire after Pearl Harbor but the Japanese on Hawaii were not incarcerated because they were needed to make coffee for the Admirals every day. Harry Truman wasn't even aware of the Manhattan project for a month after he found himself president and three months later he signed the order to use it. The eggheads who thought up the project and helped to make Atomic warfare a reality faded like rats into the background after they saw their pet project used on human beings.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Yes Japan was defeated, but thier national pride prevented them from accepting the fact. The Bomb was not ready in time for Europe, or they would have assuredly used it.  We were also unprepared for war with Germany, as the "Happy Time" for U Boats in early 1942 clearly showed. 

Since people of Japanese descent made up about 35% of Hawaii's population thier impact on the economy was far greater than making coffee for admirals. Plus Hawaii as a territory instead of a state was placed into martial law, basically providing for control over suspected japanese espionage activities.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Thousands of German Americans were rounded up through out the Country. About 6500 held almost till 1947. So much for that theory. The Japanese Americans got their day in Court the German Americans never did.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman's jealousies and pettishness leads him to making many foolish statements.
> ...



daveman, I know that the fool you are does not get it.  However, the informed and well-read do get it, that you and your ilk are here only for grins and chuckles, for our amusement.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Whitehall's opinion is contradicted by the facts of the matter.

The bombs were essential to Japan's surrender.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2011)

I wonder if the Japanese sit around on message boards like this and talk about what they could have done differently to win the war?


----------



## martybegan (Aug 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> I wonder if the Japanese sit around on message boards like this and talk about what they could have done differently to win the war?



Very interesting question. 

For Japan a win would have needed Russia to collapse. At that point American interest in preserving England might have led to a settlement with Japan, but even then I doubt it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 10, 2011)

martybegan said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the Japanese sit around on message boards like this and talk about what they could have done differently to win the war?
> ...



Do you think Japan would have been satisfied just defeating us in the Pacific, or would they have tried to come on the mainland like we did with them?


----------



## martybegan (Aug 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Japan had no desire to invade or hold US territory. They knew they did not have the forces to do it. At most they would have tried to take Hawaii as a picket territory. Thier territorial goals were in China and the pacific islands. In particular they needed Borneo for the oil supplies it had. 

Japan's basic strategy to win was to force the US into one big Naval battle, defeat it, and then accept a basic peace treaty that left them in charge of the Pacific Ocean and eastern asia. 

Maybe 40-50 years later, if they had conquered China and turned the Chinese into willing puppets would they have the manpower to take the US on with the intent to conquer it, and that would be a longshot still.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Oh, I get it, all right.  

You think so highly of yourself (Gaea knows why -- you've certainly never demonstrated any justification for your arrogance) that you simply can't imagine that people laugh at you.  You have to invent all sorts of insane reasons for not accepting that you're the recipient of derision.

Get over yourself, kid.  You ain't all that.  You ain't even a bag of chips.  



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Me laughing AT you again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What a super world that even the 'yous' get to post.   It makes my heart warm.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No, that's an Obama tingle running down your leg, you stupid moonbat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



 says the moonbat as he darts erratically in a sublunary orbit 

keep posting, daveman


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2011)

You wonder why people can't get a handle on politics when the same liberals who retoactively support Harry Truman's decision to incinerate Japanese civilians with two Atomic Bombs now want to charge Soldiers or Marines with murder if an artillery strike or an air strike kills a couple of civilians in Afghanistan.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> You wonder why people can't get a handle on politics when the same liberals who retoactively support Harry Truman's decision to incinerate Japanese civilians with two Atomic Bombs now *want to charge Soldiers or Marines with murder if an artillery strike or an air strike kills a couple of civilians in Afghanistan*.



Do you have reference on this happening?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall is merely mumbling since the dismantling of his silly position.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> whitehall is merely mumbling since the dismantling of his silly position.



Look it up windy and jake. Why am I arguing with dolts who don't have a concept of 20th century history other than the LA riots?


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall is merely mumbling since the dismantling of his silly position.
> ...



That's your answer to my question? An insult?  Does this mean you don't have a reference to this statement proving it to be true?:





whitehall said:


> You wonder why people can't get a handle on politics when the same liberals who retoactively support Harry Truman's decision to incinerate Japanese civilians with two Atomic Bombs *now want to charge Soldiers or Marines with murder if an artillery strike or an air strike kills a couple of civilians in Afghanistan.*



Who has tried to charge military personnel for murder when a fire mission goes bad or experiences collateral damage?


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2011)

Divine.Wind said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Think about it windy and consider the left wing attitude about killing the Japanese with Atomic weapons. What did we strive for in WW2 and later in Korea and VietNam? Air superiority. A country that has air superiority can dictate terms on the ground. The greatest Military in the world today is forced to fight on the enemy's terms because liberals don't think it's fair that the US dominates the battleground. An entire SEAL team was blown out of the sky in a operation that was guaranteed to get Americans killed on the ground. Two days later the Taliban stronghold was destroyed by an air strike and the bad guys were killed. What does that tell you about the way we are running the Afghanistan war?


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Me?  Moonbat?    Perhaps you'd like to show where I've criticized Obama for not being far enough left.  You know, like you have:


JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Oh, and look what else I found:


JakeStarkey said:


> I don't want single payer, but the reactionary death panels of the health insurance companies are making such decisions now.  That needs to be reformed.


You need to make up your mind, Fakey.  You can't keep your lies straight.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 11, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Think about it windy and consider the left wing attitude about killing the Japanese with Atomic weapons. What did we strive for in WW2 and later in Korea and VietNam? Air superiority. A country that has air superiority can dictate terms on the ground. The greatest Military in the world today is forced to fight on the enemy's terms because liberals don't think it's fair that the US dominates the battleground. An entire SEAL team was blown out of the sky in a operation that was guaranteed to get Americans killed on the ground. Two days later the Taliban stronghold was destroyed by an air strike and the bad guys were killed. What does that tell you about the way we are running the Afghanistan war?



First you insult me and dodge the question.  Now you are still dodging the question.  Have you no honor?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Aug 11, 2011)

The bombs had nothing to do with getting Japan to surrender, they were used to Terrorize the people of Asia and as a political tool against Russia.


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 11, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> The bombs had nothing to do with getting Japan to surrender, they were used to Terrorize the people of Asia and as a political tool against Russia.



Nonsense.


----------



## annesmith (Aug 11, 2011)

It did not end the war


----------



## martybegan (Aug 11, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> The bombs had nothing to do with getting Japan to surrender, they were used to Terrorize the people of Asia and as a political tool against Russia.



A majority of historians disagree with you, as do I. It is ironic that the bombs saved more lives on BOTH sides than they cost. Japan was not going to unconditonally surrender, they wanted 4 conditions that the allies did not want to accept. 

Even the Japanese military admits they were not ready to surrender until the  Emperor told them to, due to the bombs and the complete inability of the Japanese to defend against them. 

If this was about purely terror, and not attempts to end the war AND disrupt the Japanese war effort, why did they skip the cities of Tokyo and Kyoto?


----------



## daveman (Aug 11, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> The bombs had nothing to do with getting Japan to surrender, they were used to Terrorize the people of Asia and as a political tool against Russia.



Yeah, yeah, America sucks, we get it.  


Yawn.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 11, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The above from one of the ultimate fabricators on the Board.

I wrote he had the votes and he didn't do it.  I don't want single payer, I want a president to act like a president.  I also said the death panels are the result of the stupid right's politics.  But, you, daveman, are for health insurance death panels.

Stay focused, daveman.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 11, 2011)

annesmith said:


> It did not end the war



From the Imperial Rescript on the Surrender of Japan, in the Emperor's own words:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Seems the bombs had a pretty big influence on the surrender.


----------



## daveman (Aug 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Fakey, how can I lie when I post your words verbatim?  


Man up, kid, and accept responsibility for what you did:  You criticized Obama for not being far enough left.

Mainstream Republicans don't do that, even if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 11, 2011)

The Japanese Emperor, Hirohito, thought so. In the surrender speech he gave to the Japanese people, he admitted Japan started the war, and in his words, the surrender was due to "a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to damage is indeed incalculable..." That alone says it all.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Aug 11, 2011)

martybegan said:


> annesmith said:
> 
> 
> > It did not end the war
> ...



"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki *was of no material assistance in our war against Japan*. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. 

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." 

-ADMIRAL William Leahy,
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 11, 2011)

Neither war or weapons are civilized. So, WHY did the Japanese surrender  AFTER the use of nukes?  They coincidentally  had a epiphany that war is wrong after they murdered countless innocent civilians in China for years?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 11, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You are not a mainstream Republican, daveman, and you are a iiar.  I said he had the votes and he didn't do it.

And you are for health insurance death panels, daveman.  Quit running.


----------



## daveman (Aug 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## martybegan (Aug 11, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > annesmith said:
> ...



You really do not get japanese culture at the time, as well as the poltical situation. Even if a large portion of the population wanted to surrender, the Army was in control of the government, and the population via the police. Japanese culture is far more accomodating to authority than american culture, and barring total societal breakdown a large majority would have followed the armies directive and the emperor's exhortation to "die to the last man/woman"  The mass civilian suicides in Saipain are a preview of what would have happened if we occupied areas on the japanese home islands.  

Leahy also said this about the bomb:


"This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 11, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 11, 2011)

This is an ideological quagmire. The use of the A-Bomb in Japan was unprecedented. Now, given the luxury of foresight, we can condemn the use atomic weapons.  At the time, the  Japanese were kicking ass, they were the bullies. They were invading indo-china with imperialist ambitions. Somebody came along and kicked their asses to stop them, we (Americans) were more ingenuous than the Japanese and more brutal. So&#8230; the Japanese paint themselves as victims here AFTER they get their asses kicked in a war THEY started? We had a bigger stick than they did, and don't kid yourself, these same poor Japanese wouldn&#8217;t have blinked if they nuked LA or San Francisco if  they had the same weapon. Please&#8230;.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 11, 2011)

True.   Revisionist history is refuted by the facts.

Bataan Death March


> While the Japanese pounded Corregidor (which would surrender on May 6), they led their prisoners on a forced march out of Bataan. Before the "Death March" was over, those who survived would march more than sixty miles through intense heat with almost no water or food. Somewhere between 5,000 and 11,000 never made it to Camp O'Donnell, where fresh horrors awaited.



Rape of Nanking


> In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and *proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city*. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the single worst atrocity during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war.



Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World - Revisiting World War II Atrocities - Comparing the Unspeakable to the Unthinkable - NYTimes.com


> AUSCHWITZ. Dachau. Ping Fan. Changchun. In the shorthand of World War II atrocities, some names are more recognizable than others.
> 
> But while Nazi scientists like Josef Mengele conducted hideous experiments on concentration camp prisoners, their lesser-known Japanese counterparts, led by Gen. Shiro Ishii, were waging full-scale biological warfare and subjecting human beings to ghastly experiments of their own -- and on a far greater scale than the Germans.
> 
> ...


----------



## daveman (Aug 11, 2011)

Divine.Wind said:


> True.   Revisionist history is refuted by the facts.
> 
> Bataan Death March
> 
> ...



And Truthseeker (snerk!) insists WE'RE the bad guys.

Moron.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 11, 2011)

All the facts point out that the A-bomb  DID stop the horrors the Japanese were  perpetrating since the 30&#8217;s. They bombed the US ( Pearl Harbor) because of the oil embargo. We were trying to stop or slow the Japanese invasion in China and the horrors the JAPANESE visited  on the innocent people there&#8230;The Japanese didn&#8217;t show much humanitarian concerns, how odd they invoke the inhumanity of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the tables were turned&#8230;They protest a little to much.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 11, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> I lived on Kyushu, close to Nagasaki. Been there many times. Beautiful city (today).
> 
> Trust me - the bombs did MUCH damage. 90,000166,000 killed in Hiroshima, 60,00080,000 killed in Nagasaki
> 
> You don't find that significant ?



Considering that 4 million Japanese and 70 million people had already died, not really.  

The Japanese were much more afraid of their country being partitioned with the USSR.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 11, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



But a key point here, Gunny.  We accepted terms.  Before the USSR got into it, we insisted on unconditional surrender, including the abdication of Hirohito.  But after the USSR got in, we were willing to accept Hirohito remaining on the throne, and even made efforts to downplay his role in the actual war.  

 We didn't want the USSR to get a stronger hold on Asia like they were getting in Eastern Europe. So we were willing to accept a little less than surrender.  (Also, public opinion was turning against the war as well after Okinawa.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 11, 2011)

Divine.Wind said:


> Nukes ended the war.  Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting.  WWII was devastating on a global scale.  The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.
> 
> Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be "_extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties._"
> 
> The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima gave indications of how high the casualty rates would be on both sides.   We've lost about 7000 American deaths in 10 years of fighting  in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Can anyone imagine the calamity of losing that many in a single battle with even bigger battles on the horizon?   If given the choice to drop a new weapon as a means to force surrender or invade and incur tens of thousands of more dead Americans, I wouldn't have to think twice on my choice.



I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.  

I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.  

Keep in mind that from Pearl Harbor, the Japanese never thought they could beat the US. THey thought they could drag the war on long enough to get terms favorable to them. Because this is pretty much what had happened in their war with Russia in 1905. The prospect of their exhausted Armies on the mainland facing hardened Soviet Troops who could then threaten the homeland made surrender to the relatively benign Americans seem much more palatable.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 11, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Where were all these brave arm chair Generals during the war? Our Military really could have used guys like ginscpy and joeb131.



Well, I hadn't been born yet.  

Now, During the Gulf War, I was a Staff Sergeant in the US Army... good enough for you?


----------



## martybegan (Aug 11, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Nukes ended the war.  Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting.  WWII was devastating on a global scale.  The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.
> ...



The entry of the soviets was more of a blow to thier diplomatic chances than to the security of the main islands. While thier troops in china were in trouble, the entry of the soviets would actually be a good excuse for them to withdraw thier troops back to the mainland (if they had any transport remaining)

The one weakness of the soviet army in WWII was its complete lack of amphibious ability. That was the one area of combat they did not participate in, and they had no real landing craft.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 11, 2011)

I lost an Uncle in the Pacific. Another fought in Iwo Jima. My father took a Japanese bullet in the arm, had it been two inches over, I wouldn&#8217;t be here. I don&#8217;t hold in high regard all the pedantic and pathetic reasons against using the nuclear bombs in Japan. It was a new tool in the arsenal. Nobody knew what would have happened when  it was used, and it hasn&#8217;t been used SINCE. On the other hand, nobody knew how many people would have died a inevitable assault on Japan, and how many months or years that would have taken. It is arguable the two bombs saved  more lives than it took. The Japanese surrendered BECAUSE of the  A-bombs, their own emperor SAID so.  That speaks for itself...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 11, 2011)

Once again, the Government notes from Japan make it clear, before the 1st Atomic Bomb the Army which Controlled the Government, was not interested in surrender. And after the 1st bomb still made demands, was not willing to surrender.

After the second bomb the Army STILL refused to surrender. ONLY the intervention of the Emperor ended the war. And even then the Army attempted a COUP to prevent the LIVING GOD that was their Emperor from surrendering.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 11, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.
> 
> I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.



1)  Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Hiroshima.  July 24th, 1945 to be exact: Atomic Bomb: Decision - Truman Tells Stalin, July 24, 1945

Note the Soviet version versus the Western version then compare it to the comments above.  Guess where some people are getting their "info".  

2)  The Soviets attacked Japan on August 9th, same day as Nagasaki.  It seems to me to be more of a "land grab" by the Soviet Union in order to take as much territory as possible before the war ended.  They already were seeing how Europe was being divided up by the West.  As the Soviet notes in #1 above pointed out (in retrospect I think) they were looking ahead to the next war or the Cold War.   Soviets attack Japan

In summary, I do not believe Truman dropped the bombs because of the Soviets.  He dropped them to end the war and the death of Americans as quickly as possible.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 12, 2011)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



But they did have a fairly effective airborne corps.  Land a few divisions by air, secure an airfield, and then start flying in troops and material.  They more than had the capability. 

Also, keep in mind, securing their gains in China were the main reason why they were continuing the war.  But the Kwantung army in Manchuria was swept up in days.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 12, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Where were all these brave arm chair Generals during the war? Our Military really could have used guys like ginscpy and joeb131.
> ...



If thats true than shame on you, you should know better than to say foolish things like Japan getting nuked wasn't significant for them to end the war, even a 4th grade boy would know that it was.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2011)

JoeB, I honor your service.

However, your understanding of the nukes' effect on Japan's surrender is inaccurate.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 12, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The only time two times an airhead was maintained soley by air resupply ended with mixed results. Crete for the germans was a disaster, and only the lack of british reinforcements prevented the airborne forces defeat. The lack of german seaborne reinforcement (it was sunk) almost ruined the sucessful invasion of the island, and it decimated the german paratrooop forces.

The other was the Arnhem landing of Market Garden, and there the airhead was defeated, even with airborne resupply, due to the inability of follow up ground forces to link up with the airborne troops in a short enough time period. 

i agree that control of China was the overall goal of the Japanese war strategy, but I think they would have pulled back to preserve thier home islands in the worst case scenario.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2011)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Goring promised Hitler his Luftwaffe could supply Sixth Army in the Stalingrad by air alone in November 1942.  That effort failed miserably.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



That is another good example. I was just limiting mine to attacks using airborne forces initially, but Stalingrad is a great example of the limits of air supply only.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2011)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Even in our maneuvers in Alaska's interior, taking and supplying an airhead was a difficult and major task for supporting a battalion.  Supporting the brigade and other elements from the lower 48 tasked and taxed everybody and every unit to the max.

I can't imagine what Goring was thinking.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It was his inflated sense of ego that made him think it could be done. In the end the killer of 6th army was Hitler's decsion not to allow Paulus to try to break out and reach friendly lines.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2011)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The Soviets had not developed, even by 1945, the ability to airlift and supply by air major units.  By 1955, that had changed, as Soviet air doctrine had evolved, developed, and matured.  I am glad we did not have to take them and their allies on in Europe during the 1970s or the North Koreans in the early 1980s.  In many areas, they had more material, good doctrine, and better equipment.  The enemy overestimated Reagan's will to party.  His let'sgetouttahere in Beirut was far more representative of his behavior than let'sbeatupKhaddafibyair.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.
> 
> This is one of the myths we Americans like to tell ourselves, but the Japanese Surrender had a lot more to do with the fact the USSR entered the Pacific War.
> 
> ...



The Japanese were batshit crazy, however Little Boy and Fat Man put an end to their bullshit rein of terror.

You better believe it was the end of a brutal era.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2011)

martybegan said:


> The only time two times an airhead was maintained soley by air resupply ended with mixed results. Crete for the germans was a disaster, and only the lack of british reinforcements prevented the airborne forces defeat. The lack of german seaborne reinforcement (it was sunk) almost ruined the sucessful invasion of the island, and it decimated the german paratrooop forces.
> 
> The other was the Arnhem landing of Market Garden, and there the airhead was defeated, even with airborne resupply, due to the inability of follow up ground forces to link up with the airborne troops in a short enough time period.
> 
> i agree that control of China was the overall goal of the Japanese war strategy, but I think they would have pulled back to preserve thier home islands in the worst case scenario.



In the case of Crete, the Germans didn't enjoy complete air superiority.  Also keep in mind, the entire Greek Campaign was thrown together at the last minute, as Hitler had to bail out Mussolini.  It was not like the Germans had been planning this for months. 

Germany also largely lacked heavy material lift capability.  They didn't have big transports in large numbers. 

Also, consider the scenario.  Before we can launch Operation Olympic in the South of Japan, Russia launches an attack in the North.  What do we do? Impede them?  They are our allies.  Or do we send a few thousand troop transports to Vladivostock and help them move troops?  

The thing was, we didn't want the Soviets with a foothold in Japan, and we wanted to limit their foothold in China. (The Russians did in fact take all the captured Japanese weapons in Manchuria and eventually handed them over to Mao Zedong's forces. That ended badly for our allies.)  An extended Pacific war would have been bad for us, and we knew it. 

If you look at the end game as Us, Japan and the USSR all having their own agendas, the A-bomb becomes a lot less important.   

Our goal was unconditional surrender.  

Japan's goal was to secure a peace that allowed it to keep Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria. They also wanted to keep the Emperor in place.  Their hope was that the Russians could broker a peace, and America would be too engaged in Europe to fully commit all its forces to an invasion before public opinion tired of the war. 

The Soviet Goal was to strengthen their position in the East, after renouncing the non-aggression pact with Japan. 

When they invaded, they found Japanese Armies that were poorly supplied and not nearly as battle hardened as the divisions that had spent the last four years fighting the Nazis.  They rolled up the Japanese Empire like a map.  

I make note, again, that before the Soviet Entry, we made it a point that Hirohito was to be held as accountable as the other war criminals running Japan.  Afterwards, we agreed to a peace that left him in place, and even allowed the defendents in the Tokyo trials to lie their asses off about his complicity. 

Not something you do when you have the most awesome, fearsome weapon ever.


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 13, 2011)

The japanese have only themselves to blame for the bombings.  Here's Truman's statement (excerpt) issued august 6, 1945, 3 days before Hiroshima:



> We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.
> 
> It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum.* If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.*



This is the most crystal clear warning anyone has ever gotten.  The japanese ignored it - the rest is history.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 13, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The only time two times an airhead was maintained soley by air resupply ended with mixed results. Crete for the germans was a disaster, and only the lack of british reinforcements prevented the airborne forces defeat. The lack of german seaborne reinforcement (it was sunk) almost ruined the sucessful invasion of the island, and it decimated the german paratrooop forces.
> ...



The Japanese troops were very battle hardened. The problem was that they were basically a pure infantry force with artillery. Thier tanks were 1930's cast offs, and thier anti tank ability was close to zero. The soviet forces were tank heavy, rolling over the Japanese troops as they had no effective means of resistance. 

Our agreement about Hirohito was only in the most basic terms. They still surrendered unconditonally and we could have changed our mind at any time, considering we were the only armed force during the occupation. MacAurthr was smart enough to realize he needed a figurehead to allow him control over the Japanese civillans, and he got that through the office of the emperor, who we made a consitutional monarch.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2011)

Nothing here gives any real evidence or argument that the nukes were not the major factor if Japan's unconditional surrender.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 14, 2011)

martybegan said:


> The Japanese troops were very battle hardened. The problem was that they were basically a pure infantry force with artillery. Thier tanks were 1930's cast offs, and thier anti tank ability was close to zero. The soviet forces were tank heavy, rolling over the Japanese troops as they had no effective means of resistance.



How were the Soviet tanks at swimming across the Sea of Japan?


----------

