Barefoot Gen

[Meatwad]

Thanks for the movie link, have it saved in my queue to watch later on

[1pLUs44]

Penguin,
Stop being obtuse.  Your example is in noway relevant to the topic.

As for my feelings, I absolutely have ZERO qualms about the United States actions during WW2 with regards to fire bombing or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I feel that both types of actions served a purpose that furthered the end result which was the prevention of further loss of life for the allies and near annihilation of the japanese in the end.  Japanese morale was in no way a factor of ending the war especially considering the examples set on okinawa and the indisputable fact that the japanese were stockpiling scores of suicide weapons on the home islands for use in repelling and invasion.  Further, their actions too date indicate that the defense would have been fanatical and involved the use of women and children as was clearly evident on okinawa.  So, again, I will repeat that they earned the ending of the war as a consequence of their actions.  Whether their populace stood up (or not) to their leaders is irrelevant to the discussion.  The actions of the japanese as a whole earned the ending they received.

As for your attempts to compare 9/11 and Hiroshima or nagasaki, there is simply no relevance between the two events.  The only relevance is that they indeed are both attacks, that is where the relevance stops.

"Japanese garrison suffered over 13,000 casualties. The number of prisoners taken by the U. S . forces was less than 300. Most were captured near the end of the campaign, when they started running out of food and water. Twenty six Japanese soldiers held out in the caves in Peleliu until 1947 and finally surrendered after a Japanese Admiral from Japan convinced them the war was over."

http://www.visit-palau.com/60thanniv/history.html

This is the proof of the fanaticism of the Japanese in WWII. Take 13,000/300 ratio and put that towards an entire population of a country and you get an idea as to what the war COULD have come to.

[coombz]

Sorry, but I do not agree with your opinions on the cold war as they are revisionist at best.  

from what I've posted you know nothing of my opinions of the cold war, other than that it was hilariously stupid.

That's not revisionist, that's inarguable  

[bagrat]

 

wheres that popcorn eating smiley

[Bodhi]

from what I've posted you know nothing of my opinions of the cold war, other than that it was hilariously stupid.

That's not revisionist, that's inarguable  

Considering that you involve the word hilarious, I will agree that you are stupid and not worth my time.  <insert a smiley thing of your choice here>

[coombz]

"If Satan ever laughs, it must be at hypocrites; they are the greatest dupes he has."  -  Charles Colton

[Penguin]

"Japanese garrison suffered over 13,000 casualties. The number of prisoners taken by the U. S . forces was less than 300. Most were captured near the end of the campaign, when they started running out of food and water. Twenty six Japanese soldiers held out in the caves in Peleliu until 1947 and finally surrendered after a Japanese Admiral from Japan convinced them the war was over."

http://www.visit-palau.com/60thanniv/history.html

This is the proof of the fanaticism of the Japanese in WWII. Take 13,000/300 ratio and put that towards an entire population of a country and you get an idea as to what the war COULD have come to.

How exactly can you overlay the actions of a military onto a civilian population?  There's a reason that basic training exists- to change civilians into soldiers.  There wouldn't be enough time or instructors to train entire populations like that.  Also, the Emperor would have surrendered if the casualties got that steep; the casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly sufficient.

-Penguin

[1pLUs44]

How exactly can you overlay the actions of a military onto a civilian population?  There's a reason that basic training exists- to change civilians into soldiers.  There wouldn't be enough time or instructors to train entire populations like that.  Also, the Emperor would have surrendered if the casualties got that steep; the casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly sufficient.

-Penguin

I put that in there as a mere example and its not like the civilians would be completely out of it. Have you ever seen videos of the civilians on Saipan jumping off cliffs to their doom? The Japanese were at the least fanatical with the way they fought and made it clear that if they couldn't win, they'd make every inch lost count for it in lives.

And what makes you say that the Emperor would have surrendered if the nukes were not used? That would probably be at a much greater toll of life on both sides. The cold hard truth is, war is hell and people die. Civilians, soldiers, men, women, children, everybody. Yes, the nuclear bomb killed thousands of Japanese women, children, and unarmed men, but the Japanese were doing it almost 10 years before in China. The bomb was used for good reason and what most people can't grasp is the idea that if it hadn't been used, the Japanese people probably wouldn't be in existence now because of their never surrender attitude.

[Penguin]

Again, you're taking a subset of the population that jumped off in one island.  It's like looking at the Reagan era and extrapolating that the US has always pursued a supply-side economy (it hasn't, look at the New Deal and modern stimulus).  I never said that civilians would be completely out of it, but the scale of civilian participation would be negligible compared to the numbers of dead due to the nukes.  As I have said before, the Emperor would have surrendered if the nukes had not been used because the nukes themselves weren't the cause of his surrender.  He surrendered because it became clear to him that the destructive potential of the United States had increased to such an extent that resistance was futile.  He would have likely come to the same conclusion if the bombs had been dropped, like I said, on Mount Fuji or another recognizable landmark that had plenty of witnesses around to confirm that it was, in fact, a nuke that had done it.  Furthermore, Japan hadn't been invaded in centuries, and the psychological blow of foreign boots on Japanese soil would have been devastating.  Though the nukes were successful, they were not the best solution by far; in order, the best solutions would be: Nuke Mount Fuji, nuke right near Hiroshima, invade and take Tokyo via blitzkrieg, blockade until they sue for peace, nuke Hiroshima.

The fact that the enemy killed lots of civilians and no longer posed a threat to your civilians does not entitle you to kill lots of their civilians.  The idea was to end the war cleanly, not make it worse.

-Penguin

[1pLUs44]

Again, you're taking a subset of the population that jumped off in one island.  It's like looking at the Reagan era and extrapolating that the US has always pursued a supply-side economy (it hasn't, look at the New Deal and modern stimulus).  I never said that civilians would be completely out of it, but the scale of civilian participation would be negligible compared to the numbers of dead due to the nukes.  As I have said before, the Emperor would have surrendered if the nukes had not been used because the nukes themselves weren't the cause of his surrender.  He surrendered because it became clear to him that the destructive potential of the United States had increased to such an extent that resistance was futile.  He would have likely come to the same conclusion if the bombs had been dropped, like I said, on Mount Fuji or another recognizable landmark that had plenty of witnesses around to confirm that it was, in fact, a nuke that had done it.  Furthermore, Japan hadn't been invaded in centuries, and the psychological blow of foreign boots on Japanese soil would have been devastating.  Though the nukes were successful, they were not the best solution by far; in order, the best solutions would be: Nuke Mount Fuji, nuke right near Hiroshima, invade and take Tokyo via blitzkrieg, blockade until they sue for peace, nuke Hiroshima.

The fact that the enemy killed lots of civilians and no longer posed a threat to your civilians does not entitle you to kill lots of their civilians.  The idea was to end the war cleanly, not make it worse.

-Penguin

You are so wrong about that. If we had been forced into an invasion of Japan there would have been nobody left on the Japanese side. And how can you compare MY legitimate comparison about Japanese soldiers and CIVILIANS and their fanaticism to Ronald Reagan? Thats just dumb. But you are entitled to believe whatever will make you sleep at night. But if you take a cold hard look at the reality of how fanatical and crazy the Japanese were about surrender, you'd have maybe thought differently. I'm done here. Good day to you sir.

[Penguin]

I did not compare them to Ronald Reagan.  If they were like Ronald Reagan, who knows what would have happened.  I was trying to make it clear that you had extrapolated too much from too little data.  You have not cited a single source in any of your arguments.  I took a cold, hard look at it, and the Japanese were pretty much like the Americans.  Many were more zealous than average, but they were certainly not fanatical overall, and my sources prove it.  The Japanese would not have fought to the last because they were certainly willing to surrender to the nukes, so we know that that is beyond their breaking point.  How far beyond is what this debate was all about.

However, seeing as you withdraw with nothing but a personal shot, then I win!

-Penguin 

[1pLUs44]

I did not compare them to Ronald Reagan.  If they were like Ronald Reagan, who knows what would have happened.  I was trying to make it clear that you had extrapolated too much from too little data.  You have not cited a single source in any of your arguments.  I took a cold, hard look at it, and the Japanese were pretty much like the Americans.  Many were more zealous than average, but they were certainly not fanatical overall, and my sources prove it.  The Japanese would not have fought to the last because they were certainly willing to surrender to the nukes, so we know that that is beyond their breaking point.  How far beyond is what this debate was all about.

However, seeing as you withdraw with nothing but a personal shot, then I win!

-Penguin 

Not even a personal shot. You're clueless  I don't need to cite a source of something that you and I know that happened. I gave you cold hard data of how the Japanese resistance was stiff whenever they were being attacked by Americans. Would there have been some changes now that it was on the home front? I think so. I think it would have been MUCH more costly than the atomic bombs. I can present you with concrete evidence on just how hard the Japanese would fight to stop the American advance, but you will only call that information irrelevant due to the fact that it isn't on the Japanese mainland and then bring out some moot comparison about something completely off topic.

[Penguin]

Again, the personal shot.

Anyway, with regard to sources, go ahead, make my day.  If you really have evidence, then go ahead and put it up.  You can't make baseless claims on your own authority.  I never said that the evidence was irrelevant; I said that there wasn't enough of it.  I also never said that the evidence had to be from the mainland, it only had to be relevant to the period (e.g., 1941 was a very different time in comparison to 1945).

All I hear is: "You're clueless, I'm right and don't need to prove it, I think this that and the other thing".  Let's get some evidence!

-Penguin

[Ack-Ack]

If Japan deserved to be nuked then the US deserved 9/11

If given the choice of dropping an atomic bomb or invading a country and suffering an estimated million plus casualties on your side on the first day of the invasion, all I can say is "BOMBS AWAY!".

Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably ended up saving more lives than were lost, in fact, more Japanese were killed in the Tokyo fire bombings than in either atomic bombings.

ack-ack

[bagrat]

Not even a personal shot. You're clueless  I don't need to cite a source of something that you and I know that happened. I gave you cold hard data of how the Japanese resistance was stiff whenever they were being attacked by Americans. Would there have been some changes now that it was on the home front? I think so. I think it would have been MUCH more costly than the atomic bombs. I can present you with concrete evidence on just how hard the Japanese would fight to stop the American advance, but you will only call that information irrelevant due to the fact that it isn't on the Japanese mainland and then bring out some moot comparison about something completely off topic.

An invasion would have cost many lives (possibly fight to the last), but what if the bomb was dropped somewhere off shore so they could observe  the superior technology they were against. If the japanese saw this and knew the next one was gonna land on them, would they have surrendered?