Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[elektra]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.

Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".

A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

You need to research conditions in Japan. Do not check your limited library. Try Google.
Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?

So know you acknowledge that Japanese civilians were active, supporting the war, thank you.

Google? Google is not a source, not at all, the idea that Google can give you an answer in a second is pure stupidity, not even what I would call ignorance.

My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google, specifically because I have bought my books to address this topic specifically. I do not contend all 1400 books are specifically about the bombing of Japan. But a nice proportion of my books were bought specifically to read what you and others literally were quoting.

I have thus far proved that in my previous posts, your chirping like a parrot does not deminish the books I own that you quote through Google.

So once again, go ahead and challenge what you flame, my library.

You got google, go ahead, run your fingers, come up with something and I will quote the books directly, if I find I have not the particular book, I guarantee I will find the relevant material, and buy it.

Japanese civilians working on Munitions and Armaments is a legitimate target. Thank you for confirming they were not at home knitting socks.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.

Except the Japanese didn't have such a weapon. Not even close. Japan was effectively crippled.

 

[JoeB131]

Poor Baby, you give up on your "fast" Google searches?

No, I gave up on trying to have a sane conversation with an obviously crazy person.

My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google,

Yeah, okay. Frankly, you sound like the equivlent to a crazy cat lady, wiht books instead of cats...

 

[Camp]

Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.

Except the Japanese didn't have such a weapon. Not even close. Japan was effectively crippled.

The Japanese launched about 9,000 balloon bombs. About 350 were confirmed to have reached the USA. Six US citizens were killed by one in Oregon. One was found in British Colombia recently. Just because they used explosives and didn't combine their balloon operations with Unit 731's biological warfare programs doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't have.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pity there were only two prototype bombs available at the time else the obstacle to navigation that is Japan might have been cleared.

 

[regent]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, the Japanese they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.

 

[JoeB131]

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

Uh huh. Okay, realizing that this isn't the 'Let's bash Japan thread", but the "Was dropping the bombs needed thread", if the Japanese didn't care about human life, then dropping the bombs was kind of meaningless.

The big game changer was the USSR entering the war.

 

[gipper]

No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.

Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".

A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

You need to research conditions in Japan. Do not check your limited library. Try Google.
Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?

So know you acknowledge that Japanese civilians were active, supporting the war, thank you.

Google? Google is not a source, not at all, the idea that Google can give you an answer in a second is pure stupidity, not even what I would call ignorance.

My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google, specifically because I have bought my books to address this topic specifically. I do not contend all 1400 books are specifically about the bombing of Japan. But a nice proportion of my books were bought specifically to read what you and others literally were quoting.

I have thus far proved that in my previous posts, your chirping like a parrot does not deminish the books I own that you quote through Google.

So once again, go ahead and challenge what you flame, my library.

You got google, go ahead, run your fingers, come up with something and I will quote the books directly, if I find I have not the particular book, I guarantee I will find the relevant material, and buy it.

Japanese civilians working on Munitions and Armaments is a legitimate target. Thank you for confirming they were not at home knitting socks.

I get it. I are an advocate of total wa

 

[Unkotare]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, the Japanese they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.

Demonstrating once again you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[regent]

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

Uh huh. Okay, realizing that this isn't the 'Let's bash Japan thread", but the "Was dropping the bombs needed thread", if the Japanese didn't care about human life, then dropping the bombs was kind of meaningless.

The big game changer was the USSR entering the war.

Read Hirohito's surrender message, it might be pretty honest and accurate.

 

[elektra]

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!

At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.

Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say.

We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did. Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito! Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

 

[gipper]

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.

The thread is about the use of A bombs. Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?

Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.

Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".

A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

You need to research conditions in Japan. Do not check your limited library. Try Google.
Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?

So know you acknowledge that Japanese civilians were active, supporting the war, thank you.

Google? Google is not a source, not at all, the idea that Google can give you an answer in a second is pure stupidity, not even what I would call ignorance.

My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google, specifically because I have bought my books to address this topic specifically. I do not contend all 1400 books are specifically about the bombing of Japan. But a nice proportion of my books were bought specifically to read what you and others literally were quoting.

I have thus far proved that in my previous posts, your chirping like a parrot does not deminish the books I own that you quote through Google.

So once again, go ahead and challenge what you flame, my library.

You got google, go ahead, run your fingers, come up with something and I will quote the books directly, if I find I have not the particular book, I guarantee I will find the relevant material, and buy it.

Japanese civilians working on Munitions and Armaments is a legitimate target. Thank you for confirming they were not at home knitting socks.

I get it. I are an advocate of total wa

What I meant to post, but my phone keyboard was acting screwy is...

I get it. You are an advocate of total war, except when it happens to you.

 

[gipper]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, the Japanese they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.

No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.

What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military.

Why is this disputed, when the evidence is clear? Could it be we Americans pride ourselves on being fair and just, and refuse to accept the truth? The massive bombings of civilian areas in Japan and Germany was clearly heinous. We must accept the truth and never let our leaders commit such acts again...wishful thinking....see Iraq War.

 

[gipper]

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!

At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.

Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say.

We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did. Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito! Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Since Japan committed very few acts of war, late in the war, Truman was right to incinerate thousands of defenseless civilians with massive aerial bombings and the use of the A bombs.

Is that your point?

 

[JoeB131]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

 

[SAYIT]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, the Japanese they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.

No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.

What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military...

You just fabricated that to support your bogus conclusions. There is no evidence that the Japanese were anything but enthusiastic supporters of war.

 

[SAYIT]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

 

[gipper]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

 

[SAYIT]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

Actual conclusion: One of many Japanese subs operating in a vast sea 1500 miles from home managed to sink a single American ship travelling alone and headed away from Japan. Is that the action of a country about to surrender or one of a country determined to continue the war?

 

[gipper]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, the Japanese they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.

No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.

What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military...

You just fabricated that to support your bogus conclusions. There is no evidence that the Japanese were anything but enthusiastic supporters of war.

You are not informed.

Read accounts from POWs imprisoned on the mainland, which clearly prove the population was staving and demoralized.