Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[JoeB131]

An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath the likes of which have never been seen Hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese would have died. Also, the winter of 1945-46 would have had a mass famine...even with American supplies, it was a lean winter.

But there wouldn't have been an invasion, that's the point.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.

Agree with nearly all this, but the J had begun efforts to discuss peace before FDR's demise, IIRC, via another country other than the Soviets. Switzerland perhaps.

More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.

Initially, because nobody had the stones to do so. Later, because of MAD.

After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.

Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?

Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.

Pyongyang should have vanished under a mushroom cloud the day they invaded South Korea.

The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.

That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

More died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in BOTH atomic bomb attacks combined. Spare us your false outrage.

 

[JoeB131]

MacArthur did not like the bomb? Care to back that up like you were not able to back up your Eisenhower claims?

do you promise to take your meds if I find you a quote, or are you going to just post more screenshots of pages of books?

Because I'm kind of done with you and apparently so is everyone else.

 

[regent]

Yes, the American people were quite concerned about the Japanese in America at the time and two thirds on the West Coast were indeed citizens, but we didn't take too many chances at that time. Amazing for a concentration camp, however, for the inmates to go on strike, maybe we don't run the correct type of concentration camps?

Well, no, the problem is that we interchangeably use the terms "concentration camp" (where people are rounded up and held against their will) with "Death Camp" (Where people are systematically exterminated.)

And, no, locking up people for who their ancestors were because we were scared was just wrong. Period.

Dropping an atomic bomb on a country that was already defeated was just wrong. Period.

In our defense, the whole world was doing a whole lot of wrong at that point.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.

Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.

maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.

anyhow, on a high note I will just add;

Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.

So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.

Not logical and terribly barbaric.

So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?

Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.

The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.

Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).

So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.

Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?

1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?

2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.

3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.

Those are your choices. What do you do?

The timeline.

February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.

August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.

August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.

August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.

What, do you do?

4. Little Boy on Japan, Fat Man on Moscow.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Already provided the link the Japanese Government had no intention of surrendering. All they offered was a cease fire in place and a return to Japan of all her lost territory, no disarmament , no end to the war in China, no occupation. They continued to make those demands after one Atomic bomb and attempted a Coup when the Emperor over rode them after the second Bomb.

 

[regent]

Yes, the American people were quite concerned about the Japanese in America at the time and two thirds on the West Coast were indeed citizens, but we didn't take too many chances at that time. Amazing for a concentration camp, however, for the inmates to go on strike, maybe we don't run the correct type of concentration camps?

Well, no, the problem is that we interchangeably use the terms "concentration camp" (where people are rounded up and held against their will) with "Death Camp" (Where people are systematically exterminated.)

And, no, locking up people for who their ancestors were because we were scared was just wrong. Period.

Dropping an atomic bomb on a country that was already defeated was just wrong. Period.

In our defense, the whole world was doing a whole lot of wrong at that point.[/QUOTE
It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.

Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?

Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.

I do not believe that is accurate. By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring. Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters.

It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives. The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too. Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers??? The war was over. The US won and most of Japan was in ruins. All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children. Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition. No greater war crime has ever been committed.

Lots of imagination and opinions based on faulty data. The Japanese had troops spread out all over Asia that were being recalled to fight off an invasion. We learned during the battle at Okinawa that they employed a tactic of disassembling aircraft and hiding them in the countryside. Many of the 1500 Kamikazes from Formosa that fought at Okinawa were these hidden aircraft. The Japanese had another 7000 of these aircraft in reserve in preparation for the invasion. In addition they had a fleet of 5000 suicide boats prepared.
What this theory of not attacking Okinawa when we did would have done was give Japan time to refurbish, retrain, reinforce and prepare for the coming invasion. There is no evidence or indication that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the bombs. The only feasible alternative would have been the continued use of fire bombing of cities and inflicting even more casualties than the atomic bombs caused. If Japan knew we were out of bombs and were unable to strike another city they would not have surrendered.
The Japanese surrendered because the Emperor believed another atomic bomb was on the way and it was going to be aimed at him.

There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs. That's it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....

Nope.

Yes it was. If you want to inform on the history of the Ryuku Kingdom and control of the islands go ahead. The island was a possession of the Japanese since 1872 and they had voting rights for the Japanese Diet. It was technically a part of Japan and while it's citizens were multicultural, they were Japanese citizens.

Don't bother...he's just not that bright.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So...you justify the a-bombs, thus killing huge numbers of defenseless civilians, because the Japanese government would not surrender. I think your justification is immoral, unethical, and tyrannical.

I see little difference between the Nazi death camps and the Rape of Nanking, to what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Then you have a grasp on reality that is, at best, tenuous.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?

Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person... You really need to get back on your medication

simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.

Too many wasted words, Joey...you should just have posted the Joey-to-English translation: "I concede."

 

[JoeB131]

[
It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?

[

My dad was in WWII as a medic. He was at Normandy and the battle of the bulge and his unit liberated Nordhausen.

And, yes, most people knew Japan was defeated by the summer of 1945. They simply had no ships or planes left.

 

[JoeB131]

There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs. That's it.

Or just telling the Japanese they could keep their Emperor, which is what we ended up doing anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?

Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person... You really need to get back on your medication

simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.

Too many wasted words, Joey...you should just have posted the Joey-to-English translation: "I concede."

Why should I. I proved that most of the military men of the time disagreed with the decision to nuke Japan.

 

[regent]

[
It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?

[

My dad was in WWII as a medic. He was at Normandy and the battle of the bulge and his unit liberated Nordhausen.

And, yes, most people knew Japan was defeated by the summer of 1945. They simply had no ships or planes left.

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

 

[kflaux]

More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.

Initially, because nobody had the stones to do so. Later, because of MAD.

Then tell us why Nixon didn't nuke VN and/or Cambodia.

After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.

Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?

Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.

Pyongyang should have vanished under a mushroom cloud the day they invaded South Korea.

So you're a psychopath who gets off on murdering innocent civilians. Good to know.

The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.

That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

More died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in BOTH atomic bomb attacks combined. Spare us your false outrage.

Not quite. Around 100k to 125k died in the Tokyo firebombings. Less than at Hiroshima, more than at Nagasaki.

And unlike you, I expect, I have been to the museum in Tokyo dedicated to the Tokyo firebombings.

Doesn't affect my point, except in the mind of a logic-challenged pinhead.

 

[elektra]

Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?

Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person... You really need to get back on your medication

simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.

Too many wasted words, Joey...you should just have posted the Joey-to-English translation: "I concede."

Why should I. I proved that most of the military men of the time disagreed with the decision to nuke Japan.

Because you say its really fast, with google?

Most Military men of the time, had no idea that we were going to Nuke Japan, hence your premise is false.

At the least, you can prove the assertions you claim are true. Eisenhower was too easy for me, lets move onto MacArthur, who you state opposed using a Nuke on Japan. Was it June 12th or July 12th, that MacArthur stated Japan's Mainland must be attacked? Its a question I know the answer to, and will post the exact page from MacArthur's book, as in a book MacArthur wrote.

But as you say, "google is fast", so while I go take pics of pages from MacArthur's book, go ahead and "google", what you believe.

 

[elektra]

Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.

Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.

maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.

anyhow, on a high note I will just add;

Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.

So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.

Not logical and terribly barbaric.

"Not logical", I would describe gimpper's reducing the War against the Japanese aggressors to one sentence as, ILLOGICAL, versus, "not logical".

 

[elektra]

[
It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?

[

My dad was in WWII as a medic. He was at Normandy and the battle of the bulge and his unit liberated Nordhausen.

And, yes, most people knew Japan was defeated by the summer of 1945. They simply had no ships or planes left.

Now you have resorted to, flat out lies.

No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.

I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!

 

[Unkotare]

There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs. That's it.

That was not "it."