Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
At least they were fighting on the correct side in Sept 1939...

Amen

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Laurie
Yes i accept this but, British and American women and children would not fight like those of japan.

The Japanese way of life was far different to that of the 'western world'. They were prepared to extinct themselves trying to defend their island to level the no other nation, not even nazi germany would follow.

 And as for the barbarity of the japs, Did you ever see the U.S. or british using POW's as bayonet practice targets?

Have you not seen the pictures of how POW's were held and treated by the Japanese?


The Japanese way of bayonet practice;


The British way;

Those pics still make me sick.   The Rape of Nanking says all need to "on the subject of Japanese Myths during WWII".

[Angus]

Grunherz:
"No single major allied country (UK, USSR, US) fighting alone could have defeated germany in ww2. Not saying Germany would have won outright in every scenario, but they couldn't loose.

The UK was too weak to break the Germans and only saved from invasion by the channel, US was too far away and unprepared till 1943, USSR barely survived 1941 against a very distracted and delayed Germany thanks to the efforts of the UK stretching the war from Norway, the west European Coast, to Greece, North Africa and the whole Atlantic. The fact that the LW used more Bf109s in the attack on France in 1940 than it did in the 1941 Barbarossa invasion is telling enough."

Yes, yes, yes and yes!!!

In 1940 Hitler said "The war is won". But it wasn't...quite. But had the Brits taken the peace with him, it would bloody well have been...

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT

btw. can i use your words :"Iraq is not a war but more of peace keeping operation" as a new sig ?

Go ahead, what i have said is the truth when you put into the context of WW2 and use of atomic weapons like i did.
On the contrary though, I think it would be much more fitting to copy holden mcgroin's post with borados quote and then holden's reply.

[Angus]

You mean the one about the righ side?
Wasn't it Churchill who poked Stalin (when he was complaining that the British were not keeping enough German divisions busy) by the fact that during the battle of France and the Battle of Britain, the German warmachine ran on Russian fuel?
Anyway, this:
"They came close to taking Moscow, but so what? Napoleon did it in 1812, Poles did it in 1611, did it help them? With industry rebuilding at Urals it was only a matter of time to kick them out. Yes, there could me much-much more blood, but not total extinction as in case they win."

So what? A little matter of time?
The Germans almost got the grip. It only took them a few months.
The "kick-out" took a COMBINED allied effort of several years. But of course you choose to belive that it was an all USSR effort.....well anyway, still more than 3 years and with many a hard hill....

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Those pics still make me sick.   The Rape of Nanking says all need to "on the subject of Japanese Myths during WWII".

Hence why i'm pro- A bomb on Japan.

[Angus]

Well, while the the firebombing on Tokyo was perhaps even more terrible than the Nuke on Nagasaki, - After Nagasagi it was over and done in a flash.
Yet, there is one more what if.
What if the Japanese had been given time (and suggestions) to explore Hiroshima, - say just another  week.... would Nagasaki have been necessary.

It's on the shady area, and as well, the USA would have been loosing people while waiting.

Some little weight on the scale was perhaps the sinking of the ship that brought the A-Bomb to the site....happening on the return route, it was a horrible event, and maybe the drop to fill the meter.....

[Viking]

The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Viking
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.

The Japanese didn't have to strike at Pearl Harbor to begin with.   But they did, and paid for it.   Tough s**t.

[Viking]

Aye.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Viking
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.

It was actually discussed to show the "flash" to the Japanese, however voted down.

Just like the Japs voted not to surrender after Hiroshima...


All sucks

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Viking
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.

And they Japanese Could have attacked a small abandoned American fishing dock.

[Charon]

The Japanese Emperor sued for peace in July, but it was rejected because Stalin wanted to enter the war in August. Truman ordered the first atomic bomb not be dropped before August 3rd, the date he and Stalin agreed on, but Stalin missed the date.

The terms of the surrender offered in July were the exact terms of the surrender that were accepted a month later. That is the reasoning for the Japanese view that it was not "inevitable."

I would like to see a source on that. Where a formal offer was made by someone with the actual authority to make such an offer.

From this (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=75114&referrerid=5405 )extremely long thread we both participated in:

Hirohito shattered precedent at a meeting of the Supreme War Council June 22, openly stating his criticism of the military: "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers. We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will now strive to study the ways and means to conclude the war. In so doing, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

Anami and his faction managed to sidestep the Emperor's rebuke. All concerned -- including the Emperor -- hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an intermediary and help end the war on a more acceptable basis than unconditional surrender.

And

The Potsdam Proclamation, issued July 26 by the heads of government of the US, UK, and China, warned of "utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan surrendered unconditionally. "We shall brook no delay," it said. The same day, the cruiser Indianapolis delivered the U-235 core of the "Little Boy" bomb to Tinian.

On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki declared the Potsdam Proclamation a "thing of no great value" and said "We will simply mokusatsu it." Literally, mokusatsu means "kill with silence." Suzuki said later the meaning he intended was "no comment." The Allies took the statement as rejection of the Potsdam Proclamation.

And in this one, even after the first bombing and the Russian declaration of war there was no consensus on the final surrender terms…

The Japanese Supreme War Council assembled on August 9 at 11 a.m. at the very moment when the bomb was being dropped on Nagasaki. Unaware of this disaster, the Japanese leaders continued to argue their conflicting points of view. Umezu asserted that the Japanese troops had not yet been defeated, and that the word "capitulation" could not be found in the country's military dictionary.113 The Soviet declaration of war was a greater stunning blow than the disaster reported from Hiroshima. The Council was evenly divided on the question of the terms of surrender. Members were not discussing whether to surrender but whether to insist on one or four conditions. Suzuki, Togo, and Yonai were for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, provided the imperial institution or kokutai was retained. Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda insisted on three additional conditions: voluntary withdrawal of Japanese forces overseas under their own commanders; no Allied occupation of Japan; and those responsible for the war to be tried by the Japanese themselves. Togo argued that the four conditions would not be acceptable to the Allied Powers. In the midst of this deadlock, one of the prime minister's aides burst into the room to announce the bombing of Nagasaki. An "impassioned" discussion followed and then the War Council adjourned, still split three against three. The 16 members of the Cabinet met in the afternoon. Again there was no consensus. Nine voted for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration with a proviso regarding kokutai, four wanted the three additional conditions to be fulfilled, and three were undecided.114

Perhaps if Hirohito had been a bit more forceful a bit earlier with the militarists, but that wasn’t his style. Then there was the surrender itself, from the horses mouth…

But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone-- the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state and the devoted service of our 100 million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

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

Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

And my conclusion from that post:

I personally don't think the bomb ended the war per se. But I don't think its use was unjustified either. It was a weapon developed to perform a conventional aspect of war far more efficiently and it worked as planned. I think it did push up the surrender date by months and pushed the Emperor to make a forceful stand. I also think that the aternative pressures would have been mass starvation or invasion, neither of which would be morally superior (and in the case of invasion, criminal from a presidential leadership standpoint even if it was "just" 31,000 US lives or even 3,100 lives). I don't see a clear will to surrender until after the bombs, though the Russian developments were equally stunning with sevear neagives of their own.

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Japanese didn't have to strike at Pearl Harbor to begin with.   But they did, and paid for it.   Tough s**t.

Exactly, i despair that people feel the need to heckle the methods used to teach these crackpots a lesson and defend a horde of barbaric and spiteful people.

[FrodeMk3]

Good post, Charon!

It could also be concluded, though, that Truman had the Soviets in mind when it was decided to drop the A-bomb. Ending the war before a Soviet expansion throughout southern asia would definetely have been a factor.

As to causing the end of the war...Hirohito knew that the news from the front wasn't good. Almost all of Japan's pre and early war possesions had been lost, They had lost their supplies of natural resources to fuel their war machine, and the military they did have left had been decimated. Plus, from other sources that I've read in the past, He was starting to have loyalty problems in his own gov't. All of these things combined, are probably what finally made him surrender.