Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
I read this John Pilger article in the paper today and I must say I found it rather striking. Pilger is a fairly renowned/condemned polemicist but the article is worth reading and evaluating on its merits before dismissing it on the basis that the author has form, so to speak.

I’ve always found it incredibly hard to judge anything that occurred in that insane and extraordinary time sitting, as we do, comfortably sixty years removed from events and so, while the action itself was unquestionably abhorrent, I’ve never felt qualified to properly criticise the decision to use the Bomb in Japan. After six long years of conflict and millions of deaths I can see why the ability to bring things to a close rather than face a continuing and bloody invasion with further losses was utilised even if the reality of using a nuclear weapon is as terrifyingly horrible as it is. I haven’t been sure whether I would support it or not and I’m very ambivalent about the whole thing but it was the starkness of choices available and the consequences either way that I thought somewhat obviated my thoughts from being pertinent.

What really caught my eye in the article, rather than the implications and accusations exposed in relation to contemporary positioning, and made me ruminate on my position, was this paragraph:

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

If that’s accurate it paints a very different picture of things and I would be very interested to see those documents. I’ve always considered that the use of nuclear weaponry brought with it military and political advantage and status but I have equally also thought that it was chosen as a course of action not because of this but in addition to it. If it wasn’t a matter of choosing what was perceived to be the lesser evil as there were limited choices though, I’m certainly inclined to feel far less ambivalent about the matter.

Anyhow, thoughts on this or the general morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
 

Sawaa

Est. Contributor
Messages
416
Role
Sissy
Ostensibly, the bombs were dropped to prevent having to launch a drawn out land invasion from the south that would have cost millions more in life - both civilian and military - and that could have prolonged the hostilities for years to come.

The truth of the matter, as touched upon in the OP, is that by this stage Russia already held a good portion of the upper north area of Japan, as they'd launched their invasion months earlier. Now, understandably, having come this far with heavy losses already, the Soviet forces and governance were not going to just retreat from Japan if the Japanese had signed into a surrender with the USA; even though the US and Soviet forces were allies. And the Japanese would not sign into a surrender that didn't include the retreat of the Soviet occupying forces, obviously.

The bombs solved both these issues. It was a message to the Japanese that surrender was the best option; regardless of conditions of surrender; and a message to the Soviets to sit down, shut up, and listen; because look what we've got. The sacrifice worked. The Soviets begrudgingly pulled all forces out of Japan and the Japanese surrendered. Was the Cold War that stretched on for decades after the close of the war worth it, though, is the big question for me~
 

doubledbbw

Est. Contributor
Messages
539
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
This is an subject that is near and dear to my heart. My father was in the Marines during this time. He had already been out in the Pacific fighting in the war for 2 years. He was sent back to the States for R&R and to prepare for the invasion of the home islands of Japan. Estimates were at that time that there would be as many as one million US casualties. My dear departed father would have been amongst the brave men fighting. So the chances of me being here right now would have been pretty slim. As for the Japanese surrendering I don't think with out the use of both Atomic bombs they would have. I have seen a show on the History Channel called The Last Mission. It is about the last B-29 bomber mission flown to Japan before they surrendered. Even after both Atomic bombs had been dropped in Japan there was still a large number of high ranking Japanese Officers who opposed the Emperor. They tried to stop the recording of the surrender message and tried to assassinate the Emperor to prevent the surrender. So as bad as it might sound we the US may have done the right thing on both August 6th and 9th. Also there is the issue of the Japanese people that would have died in a land invasion they would have all been wiped out. This is something that I am glad that did not happen. Japan has turned out to be a loyal friend and ally.
 

ade

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,247
Role
Other
hmm, from how many perspectives can we say that dropping 'the bomb' was justified?
as far as i'm aware, the key targets (cities) were already destroyed by incendiary bombs as a course of a firestorming policy.

i think that all things considered, i'll stick with my interpretation of events of America having a new 'big-stick' and having to be seen to be willing and capable of using it. otherwise, the soviet union may have reached the pacific and atlantic oceans.
 

Samaki

Contributor
Messages
457
Role
I don't really have time to read the article, but from what I understand.

I remember that the Japanese set up alarms around the city for incoming airplanes, and to get to bomb shelters. We flew around the cities so much that everyone thought we were just flying around and that they weren't going to do anything, so on the day we dropped the bombs they didn't go to the bomb shelters.

I am guilty of not paying that much attention when we were taught that though, so I don't know, plus I have been known to dream about being in class and thinking that everything the teacher said was real. I really wish I had paid attention in that class though, because now I really am getting more interested in what happened in WW2
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
if that's true, which i wouldn't doubt, it was a way for the US to exercise their techno-penis size at the cost of a few japanese lives.
 
Messages
2,148
Role
Diaper Lover
The Japs would not have surrendered if not for these bombs, therefore, thumbs up from Mr Alex.
 
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
Anyhow, thoughts on this or the general morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
My grandfather died back in April this year due to cancer and complications that arose from radiation exposure in Hiroshima.

You have to remember that they dropped the bombs back in a time when radiation and nuclear weaponry was still in it's infancy. They were ignorant to the after effects, not just the bomb blast itself. That's just the given time-frame, so I can't blame anyone for anything.

My thoughts on it? It was good how it stopped a nation from global domination and destruction, but at the same time I can't help but feel it claimed more lives than it should have.
 

CarKid

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,331
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other, Private
I'm all fr what we did. I'm sorry for all the Japs we killed, but I'd rather see them die then are American boys.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
I guess the old addage "Don't start what you can't finish" applies here. The Japanese started the war at Pearl Harbor. We finished the war in Tokyo.

As far as peace ovatures go, none would have panned out. There was an attempted coup against the Emperor after the bombs were dropped. The Emperor was regarded as a living god. Disobeying the emperor would be the worst conceivible sin for the Japanese warrior class. They (the ruling warrior class) were very much willing to see the fight through to the bitter end.

The only alternative would have been invasion. Operation Downfall would have cost the Allies at least 100,000 casualties as a conservative estimates. These estimate were based on the false assumption that the Japanese had substantially less war material (aircraft, ships, small arms etc.) then they actually had. The Japanese had over 10,000 Aircraft ready to repeat Okinawa. It would have cost a quarter of a million allied lives to sucessfully invade the Japanese home islands, and tens of millions of Japanese would die defending their homeland and Emperor.


When compared to the wholesale distruction of the Japanese home islands, the two cities destroyed by atomic weapons were better. Plus, it brought about Pax Atomica.
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
19,521
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I had to do a paper on whether we should have dropped the bomb in college 6 years ago. I took the side of yes, but as I researched the paper, I had misgivings. It seemed to me that one bomb would have been enough. One of the points given was that we did it to scare the Russians. Few people know that after the war, Russia was ready to invade Iran, of all nations. Harry Truman told Stalin that if he rolled the tanks into Iran, He would nuke Moscow. That ended Russia's plans to invade Iran.

For those of you who are young, you may not be aware that Japan inflicted the same kind of atrocities on the Chinese as the Germans did on the Jews. They forced the women into prostitution, and they even did experimental operations on men, women, and children without anesthesia. Coupled with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and the death march on Corrigador, no one had any sympathy for the Japanese.

As for their surrendering, long after the war, there were Japanese soldiers still fighting on the islands. The Japanese army had a very different mentality than the navy or the political body. They believed they could conquer the world, and if not, death before honor. Remember that the war ended for them with the komikazi fighters, and suicide mini subs. It was a different time.
 

AshleyAshes

Moderated
Messages
518
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
In prepairing for the invasion of mainland Japan, the US preordered a mass of Purple Hearts, which are medals awared for being killed or wounded in combat. Dispite the Korean conflict, Vietnam, Desert Sheild/Storm, Iraqi Freedom and every little mission between all those conflicts, this stock pile of medals is STILL being given out.

It was an estimate of 500 000 - 1 000 000 US casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan, and that's EXCLUDING any Japanese military and civilian deaths, which if you historically look at Japanese resistance of other islands taken, would have been bloody. I mean, literally, the mainland Japanese islands would be a meer shadow of what they are in the current timeline. Military and civilian forces resisting and dieing for every inch of Japanese land, even if they know they're ****ed in the long run.

The nukes on Japan actually SAVED lives, ironcally. And honestly, there were conventional bombing runs, including the fire bombing of Tokyo, that killed more people than the atom bombs anyway. The only 'impressive' part of Little Boy and Fat Man were only ONE plane was needed to do it. However, the USAF, USAAF and USN could have burned the nation to the ground without nuclear weapons if they wanted to.
 

datosprivados

Contributor
Messages
130
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Ostensibly, the bombs were dropped to prevent having to launch a drawn out land invasion from the south that would have cost millions more in life - both civilian and military - and that could have prolonged the hostilities for years to come.

The truth of the matter, as touched upon in the OP, is that by this stage Russia already held a good portion of the upper north area of Japan, as they'd launched their invasion months earlier. Now, understandably, having come this far with heavy losses already, the Soviet forces and governance were not going to just retreat from Japan if the Japanese had signed into a surrender with the USA; even though the US and Soviet forces were allies. And the Japanese would not sign into a surrender that didn't include the retreat of the Soviet occupying forces, obviously.

The bombs solved both these issues. It was a message to the Japanese that surrender was the best option; regardless of conditions of surrender; and a message to the Soviets to sit down, shut up, and listen; because look what we've got. The sacrifice worked. The Soviets begrudgingly pulled all forces out of Japan and the Japanese surrendered. Was the Cold War that stretched on for decades after the close of the war worth it, though, is the big question for me~
It depends how you view it?. If Russia hadn't left, are you saying that means USA would have needed to capitulate to "communism?".

It's a difficult question, conspiracy theories are usually deemed "bullshit" by most until "good" evidence shows up/isn't silenced. And this may be just as you said.

"Kicking everyone out of a surrendered Japan so that they may rebuild".

But if Russia DID control northern Japan, would they end up with some odd Russo-Jap mixed language permeating an everyday society controlled by mixed bag Soviets that killed half, let forty percent "get by" and let another ten percent "do really well".
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
Ostensibly, the bombs were dropped to prevent having to launch a drawn out land invasion from the south that would have cost millions more in life - both civilian and military - and that could have prolonged the hostilities for years to come.

The truth of the matter, as touched upon in the OP, is that by this stage Russia already held a good portion of the upper north area of Japan, as they'd launched their invasion months earlier. Now, understandably, having come this far with heavy losses already, the Soviet forces and governance were not going to just retreat from Japan if the Japanese had signed into a surrender with the USA; even though the US and Soviet forces were allies. And the Japanese would not sign into a surrender that didn't include the retreat of the Soviet occupying forces, obviously.
That's completely false. August Storm was not launched until August 9th, three days after the first bomb was dropped.

In addition, the IJA headquarters was not aware of exactly how bad the IJA was being beaten by massed soviet armored columns. While the Soviets would have won a swift victory, Tokyo didn't know that. While Soviet intentions in northern China might have been an influence to American strategic planning, the Japanese had much, much bigger problems to worry about then their pet colonial empire.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
The Japs would not have surrendered if not for these bombs, therefore, thumbs up from Mr Alex.
I'm all fr what we did. I'm sorry for all the Japs we killed, but I'd rather see them die then are American boys.
It was an estimate of 500 000 - 1 000 000 US casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan, and that's EXCLUDING any Japanese military and civilian deaths,
You seem to be ignoring the pertinent point of the article. Namely that neither an invasion or the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to make the Japanese surrender, and that there were ulterior motives for wanting to use the Bomb.

I'm not claiming that that is definitely how it happened but if you're going to come out in support of it shouldn't you at least address that rather major criticism?

dogboy said:
For those of you who are young, you may not be aware that Japan inflicted the same kind of atrocities on the Chinese as the Germans did on the Jews. They forced the women into prostitution, and they even did experimental operations on men, women, and children without anesthesia. Coupled with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and the death march on Corrigador, no one had any sympathy for the Japanese.

As for their surrendering, long after the war, there were Japanese soldiers still fighting on the islands. The Japanese army had a very different mentality than the navy or the political body. They believed they could conquer the world, and if not, death before honor. Remember that the war ended for them with the komikazi fighters, and suicide mini subs. It was a different time.
I don't mean to underestimate the brutality of the Japanese military at the time. It's easy to do, in a way, as we often think of the horrors of Nazism first but there certainly carried out some disgusting practices (using live soldiers for bayonet practice and such) but then again, the Allies weren't exactly squeaky clean either. Not having sympathy for the Japanese - which let's be honest, was down to an effective propaganda campaign as much as anything - doesn't seem relevant when we're talking about civilians who were killed, not soldiers.

Equally, there are some extraordinary examples of individual fanaticism in Japanese soldiers after the war was over but I don't agree that any kind of concerted effort could have continued after a political-military agreement was reached to surrender. Let's not forget the strict adhering to hierarchy and obedience to the Emperor at the time either.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
You seem to be ignoring the pertinent point of the article. Namely that neither an invasion or the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to make the Japanese surrender, and that there were ulterior motives for wanting to use the Bomb.

I'm not claiming that that is definitely how it happened but if you're going to come out in support of it shouldn't you at least address that rather major criticism?
We can never be sure of that, can we? The very fact that the military establishment attempted a coup against the Living God Emperor even after two large cities were reduced to nothingness says, at least in my mind, that the military rulers were not going to surrender.

As for ulterior motives, yes, there were probably some. It surely factored into the decision to end the war with the bombs. Of course, saving a million allied casualties surely factored in as well. The fact remains that all evidence points to the Japanese fighting to the last man, woman, and child to prevent an Allied conquest of their homeland. This goes beyond simple logic, this is all about the Warrior code that the rulers put themselves under, and made their decisions under the influence of.
I don't mean to underestimate the brutality of the Japanese military at the time. It's easy to do, in a way, as we often think of the horrors of Nazism first but there certainly carried out some disgusting practices (using live soldiers for bayonet practice and such) but then again, the Allies weren't exactly squeaky clean either. Not having sympathy for the Japanese - which let's be honest, was down to an effective propaganda campaign as much as anything - doesn't seem relevant when we're talking about civilians who were killed, not soldiers.

Equally, there are some extraordinary examples of individual fanaticism in Japanese soldiers after the war was over but I don't agree that any kind of concerted effort could have continued after a political-military agreement was reached to surrender. Let's not forget the strict adhering to hierarchy and obedience to the Emperor at the time either.
You're severely underestimating the severity of Japanese war crimes. Compared to the German Army, the Japanese were cold blooded killers. The literally raped their way through China, burning everything in their path. They made sure most prisoners that surrendered to them were tortured and eventually killed, either by starvation, disease, or the blade of a Katana. The Germans, to their credit, always treated the western Allies' POWs with respect under the Geneva Conventions.

Why is it that the Atomic Bombs are always considered so horrible in World War 2? The only difference between what happened there and the destruction of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and Berlin is only one bomber delivered the payload. What of the bombings of Warsaw and London? Why does one bomb accomplishing what it took a fleet of bombers to do all of a sudden make it so condemnable? Why does a nuclear blast kill you more then ten thousand conventional bombs?

The war crimes of the Allies, and perhaps even the Germans all pale in comparison to the Japanese Crimes. Their crimes against the people of China are, even today, not known to the west. Because, after all, the Chinese are ZOMG communzit!, and the Japanese make our computers. During the Japanese military adventures in China, over 17 Million Chinese were killed by the Japanese invaders. Over 300,000 died in the Rape of Nanking alone. They carved a path of death and destruction wherever they went, not to mention the use of Chemical weapons, the only time a major power has used a chemical weapon since World War I. Surely the allies (especially the Soviet Union) did some horrible things in the War, but they are simply not even close compared to Japanese war crimes.

We can do post historical revisionism all we want, but it's clear that the Japanese military government had no intention of surrendering, and they were not in a position to be forced to surrender by anything less then special means. And even then there was no guarantee. The only surefire way to end the war was an Invasion. An invasion which would have crippled the Japanese nation and Genepool. We're damned lucky that Truman used the bombs. Many of us probably would not be sitting here today if Downfall was executed.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
sparkmaster said:
You're severely underestimating the severity of Japanese war crimes. Compared to the German Army, the Japanese were cold blooded killers. The literally raped their way through China, burning everything in their path. They made sure most prisoners that surrendered to them were tortured and eventually killed, either by starvation, disease, or the blade of a Katana.
Not at all, mate.

When I said it can be easy to think of the horrors of Nazism first I didn't mean it would be a proper thing to do, I meant it would be an error. I'm well aware of what the Japanese did during the war and it is, of course, disgusting. 17 million dead is appalling but let's remember that some 70 million died in the war altogether and the Russians incurred the greatest losses, some 27 million, while the Germans murdered around 12 million civilians in concentration camps - who is worse than who in such circumstances is beyond me. What I question is why that should have any bearing on the slaughter of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Why is Hiroshima and Nagasaki different from the London Blitz or Berlin (leaving aside Dresden because that was indefensible in my mind)? Well, you touched on it yourself -
Why does a nuclear blast kill you more then ten thousand conventional bombs? It doesn't but it kills many more people in an instant and it continues to kill people long after the blast hits. Some 40,000 died in London, around 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 and thousands more since. The entire infrastructure was also devastated on a far greater scale than anything bar Dresden and possibly Warsaw. Not knowing how radiation would affect people, incidentally, is no excuse - you are responsible for the consequences of your actions even if you are ignorant of them. The context and lack of military necessity - the clarity, instantaneousness and starkness of choice - also set it apart.

Also, forgive me if it sounds glib, but two wrongs don't make a right - the Germans, the Japanese and the Allies all did terrible things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine and scrutinize any one of them because so many bad things were going on. I'm not saying the Blitz or the siege of Warsaw wasn't awful, I'm asking if this extra piece of awfulness was absolutely necessary.

it's clear that the Japanese military government had no intention of surrendering, and they were not in a position to be forced to surrender by anything less then special means.
Is it? That's what has been long assumed but it's also what the article questions, "The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943", "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".

There can be no excuse for not having tried everything before resorting to measures like using nukes or invading. I'm just concerned that everything may not have been tried as using those nukes was perceived to be otherwise advantageous.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
Not at all, mate.

When I said it can be easy to think of the horrors of Nazism first I didn't mean it would be a proper thing to do, I meant it would be an error. I'm well aware of what the Japanese did during the war and it is, of course, disgusting. 17 million dead is appalling but let's remember that some 70 million died in the war altogether and the Russians incurred the greatest losses, some 27 million, while the Germans murdered around 12 million civilians in concentration camps - who is worse than who in such circumstances is beyond me. What I question is why that should have any bearing on the slaughter of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh no, the 17 million figure was just for the Sino-Japanese war. This does not take into account atrocities in the Pacific or Burma. The Japanese were just as bad, but they lacked the efficiency of the Germans. The Germans launched a coordinated effort to rid their pure aryan empire of undesirables. The japanese just launched an orgy of rape and murder wherever they went. If you were "Aryan", German occupation wasn't that bad. It's all perspective, of course, but life in occupied Norway or Denmark was substantially better then life in occupied Poland.

Furthermore, it was oftentimes not the Wehrmacht involved in these crimes. It was the political troops sent in after the fighters did their job. The Wehrmacht did not, as a rule, engage in orgies of rape and violence against civilians that so often characterized Japanese campaigns. Surely the German military did more then their fair share of atrocities, but they were not on the sustained level that the IJA accomplished.

Why is Hiroshima and Nagasaki different from the London Blitz or Berlin (leaving aside Dresden because that was indefensible in my mind)? Well, you touched on it yourself -
Why does a nuclear blast kill you more then ten thousand conventional bombs? It doesn't but it kills many more people in an instant and it continues to kill people long after the blast hits. Some 40,000 died in London, around 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 and thousands more since. The entire infrastructure was also devastated on a far greater scale than anything bar Dresden and possibly Warsaw. Not knowing how radiation would affect people, incidentally, is no excuse - you are responsible for the consequences of your actions even if you are ignorant of them. The context and lack of military necessity - the clarity, instantaneousness and starkness of choice - also set it apart.
Your numbers are wrong. 40,000 died in the initial blast in Nagasaki, and about 70,000 died in Hiroshima.

The number of people that died exclusively from radiation poisoning are a subject of much debate. The vast, vast majority of radiation dissapated within two weeks of the blasts. Numbers vary by quite a bit. I have seen it as low as under 100 (I don't put much faith in that number, however), and others in the millions. I imagine the true number lies somewhere on the lower end of the range. According to the US Department of Energy, the total number of deaths from the Hiroshima bomb may have reached 200,000. Many more died in RAF bombing raids on German cities.

Everyone blows the bombings out of proportion. They were rebuilt just like every other city. Ten years after there was no radiation problem. People today live just as long there as every other place in Japan. The Atomic Bombs were bombing raids where one bomber replaces an entire wing, with the strategic objective of forcing Japan to surrender. This was accomplished without American bloodshed.
Also, forgive me if it sounds glib, but two wrongs don't make a right - the Germans, the Japanese and the Allies all did terrible things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine and scrutinize any one of them because so many bad things were going on. I'm not saying the Blitz or the siege of Warsaw wasn't awful, I'm asking if this extra piece of awfulness was absolutely necessary.
Considering a quadruply aweful alternative of Invasion, the bombs were the best way to go.
Is it? That's what has been long assumed but it's also what the article questions, "The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943", "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".

There can be no excuse for not having tried everything before resorting to measures like using nukes or invading. I'm just concerned that everything may not have been tried as using those nukes was perceived to be otherwise advantageous.
Yes. As I said before, the military attempted a coup against the Emperor after the bombs were dropped. The government run by the Emperor was not in charge. The Military was in charge. And the military would fight to the death. They demostrated it in the Solomons, they demonstrated it in the Marianas, the demonstrated it at Iwo Jima, they demonstrated it at Okinawa, and they would surely demonstrate it in Tokyo.

Furthermore, why should the Allies exept an armistice or conditional surrender? The Japanese started the war. Why should the allies exept peace on anything but their terms?

The Japanese military was going to fight to the death. The attempted coup proved it.
 

the0silent0alchemist

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,958
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I guess the old addage "Don't start what you can't finish" applies here. The Japanese started the war at Pearl Harbor. We finished the war in Tokyo.

As far as peace ovatures go, none would have panned out. There was an attempted coup against the Emperor after the bombs were dropped. The Emperor was regarded as a living god. Disobeying the emperor would be the worst conceivible sin for the Japanese warrior class. They (the ruling warrior class) were very much willing to see the fight through to the bitter end.

The only alternative would have been invasion. Operation Downfall would have cost the Allies at least 100,000 casualties as a conservative estimates. These estimate were based on the false assumption that the Japanese had substantially less war material (aircraft, ships, small arms etc.) then they actually had. The Japanese had over 10,000 Aircraft ready to repeat Okinawa. It would have cost a quarter of a million allied lives to sucessfully invade the Japanese home islands, and tens of millions of Japanese would die defending their homeland and Emperor.


When compared to the wholesale distruction of the Japanese home islands, the two cities destroyed by atomic weapons were better. Plus, it brought about Pax Atomica.
true, the japanese has some sick ideas for halting the invasion, a fact confirmed by eyewitnisses to things.
some plans included, whch chill me to the bone to think of them actually happening included...

-training ELEMENTRY school girls and boys to strap bombs to ther backs and run underneath american tanks on the roads. and blow themselves, and the tank, and probably quite a few solders as well. even f that isnt bad, just think for a moment, the americans, fearing for their own lives might begin cutting down innocent children.

hundreds of suicide vehicles were set up along coasts to decimate the landings. like old planes on clffs that mere studens wold simply drive off the edge fly a tiny bit and just drop onto ships, there were small suicide boats in caves, and one man submarines.

the plan included throwing every human and animal possible at the americans, from people armed with naginata to cut their legs from under them. teenaged girls trained with bamboo spears, housewives told that, if unable to find a proper weapon, to use pepper to bind a soldiers eyes and then try and kill him using a meat cleaver. one eyewtness, a women who at the time was in high school, was given a wood awl by her teacher and told, "when the americans come draw upon your japanese spirit and rip out their abdomen." people would have fought to the death thinking americans were monsters. (the IJA had a propaganda program to dont you worry)

i know that, still so many were killed, and suffer because of the american nucear and firebombing but, lets compare it to the alternatve, just imagine the entre human population of japan wped out. a slaughter not unlike that of the conquests of genghis khan. and the americans would lose many while trying.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
Oh no, the 17 million figure was just for the Sino-Japanese war. This does not take into account atrocities in the Pacific or Burma. The Japanese were just as bad, but they lacked the efficiency of the Germans. The Germans launched a coordinated effort to rid their pure aryan empire of undesirables. The japanese just launched an orgy of rape and murder wherever they went. If you were "Aryan", German occupation wasn't that bad. It's all perspective, of course, but life in occupied Norway or Denmark was substantially better then life in occupied Poland.
Yes, I do known about Japanese atrocities, okay? I quoted the 17 million because you used it and just threw in a few others for perspective. I'm not sure that Nazi ideas about purity and the master race meaning only selected targets were murdered and abused really makes much difference here; the only thing that is certain is that they both did terrible things.

Your numbers are wrong. 40,000 died in the initial blast in Nagasaki, and about 70,000 died in Hiroshima.
I said in '45, not in the initial blast. About 140,000 died in Hiroshima and about 80,00 in Nagasaki by the end of the year. Obviously these are estimates but whatever figures you find won't deviate much from those.

The Japanese military was going to fight to the death. The attempted coup proved it.
So how do you explain the things referenced in that article then? You don't seem to be addressing those claims and are instead relying on others to make your case. If the stark options were between an invasion and the bombings, why are there recorded peace overtures from the Japanese and how do explain Pilger's quotes that bring American interests and strategies into doubt? Those taken from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, from ambassadors, from the Secretary of War and such.

Understand that I'm being a devil's advocate in arguing with you to an extent - as said before I'm ambivalent about the whole thing - but I would just like to see someone who supports the use of nuclear weapons to engage with those criticisms and claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top