Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on August 04, 2005, 01:19:31 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4743061.stm
-
"In addition to Americans veterans, I have been thanked as well by Japanese veterans and civilians who would have been expected to carry out a suicidal defence of their homelands. Combined with the efforts of all Americans and our allies we were able to stop the killing," Brigadier General Tibbets says.
It is a sentiment upon which the surviving crewmen are unanimous.
Amen.
-
Yep.
-
"The use of the atomic weapon was a necessary moment in history. We have no regrets".
It was their duty, and it's silly to blame the crew.
But IMHO it could be more polite to say they are sorry. They didn't know what they carry in a bomb bay.
A "necessary moment in history" it was mostly to show USSR that "allies" have another instrument of mass-destruction against us. Atomic bombings were used as a back-up during negotiations in Potsdam.
At the same time Soviet Army crushed Japanese continental forces in Manchuria and Korea, exactly according to an agreement from Yalta conference - no later then 3 months after a Victory in Europe.
Sorry.
-
Boroda. :rolleyes:
No need for an apology from the crew and they did know what they had. It was necessary and those who died from it are no more dea than those who died from any other weapon. This is just a very graphic weapon that symbolizes the phrase that "war is hell".
-
Bull**** boroda. The alternative to dropping the bomb was to suffer millions of casualties on both sides invading japan.
And the word "Millions" is not an overstatement.
Good work Enola Gay.
-
Bah.. A million deaths is merely a statistic
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull**** boroda. The alternative to dropping the bomb was to suffer millions of casualties on both sides invading japan.
And the word "Millions" is not an overstatement.
Good work Enola Gay.
Technically you cant have an overstatement there, because regardless of what figure you use, its an estimate. It never happened.
-
See Rule #5
-
the crew for doing their job and duty.
to *******s who think we were wrong for doing it.
-
doesn't matter WHAT anbody else thinks.
we did it, we'd do it again and we will if we're faced with a similar choice and a valid target.
best the resta world understands THAT.. could care less if they like it or not.
-
I think the most telling aspect is we used them when they were necesary but, havnt used them again in anger since.
-
Didn't one of the crew go insane and later committed suicide?
I seem to remember hearing that...but it could be b/s.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
doesn't matter WHAT anbody else thinks.
we did it, we'd do it again and we will if we're faced with a similar choice and a valid target.
best the resta world understands THAT.. could care less if they like it or not.
Dittos Hang
-
"I think the most telling aspect is we used them when they were necesary but, havnt used them again in anger since"
Good point though the fact the Russians had em might have something to do with this?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Boroda. :rolleyes:
No need for an apology from the crew and they did know what they had. It was necessary and those who died from it are no more dea than those who died from any other weapon. This is just a very graphic weapon that symbolizes the phrase that "war is hell".
If they knew what they drop - it indeed doesn't change anything, they had an order.
Some nations don't need such a "graphic" weapon to show this very simple and obvious thing...
In 1941 my Grandfather said that BM-13 "Katyusha" jet-mortar was a most horrible weapon invented my human kind... He was one of the first officers who studied it and used it at the front line. Unfortunately he was mistaken :(
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull**** boroda. The alternative to dropping the bomb was to suffer millions of casualties on both sides invading japan.
And the word "Millions" is not an overstatement.
Good work Enola Gay.
There was no nessesity to invade Japan.
BTW, Soviet forces invaded Sothern Sakhalin and Kuril islands, and it didn't result in severe losses.
After USSR interfered and destroyed Japanese forces in Manchuria - there was no other chance for Japan other then surrender. They attempted to use USSR as a negotiator for surrender conditions since early 1945.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
doesn't matter WHAT anbody else thinks.
We understand it.
Originally posted by Hangtime
we did it, we'd do it again and we will if we're faced with a similar choice and a valid target.
There was no choice. Truman needed something to blackmail JVS in Potsdam. It was a real reason for 200000 civilians to be burnt alive.
And of your leaders will do it again - they are absolutely insane. Skydancer already said the real reason.
Originally posted by Hangtime
best the resta world understands THAT.. could care less if they like it or not.
It's up to you. Since 1947 you knew that "there is no secret of an atomic bomb". And in 1949 USSR didn't declare that we posess a Bomb, your recon planes discovered it 2 month after a first test explosion. USSR didn't need to blackmail anyone.
-
Bull**** boroda. The alternative to dropping the bomb was to suffer millions of casualties on both sides invading japan.
And the word "Millions" is not an overstatement.
Sure the term 'millions' is an over statement. Its down right stupid propaganda as well.
The initial invasion of the southern Island of Japan involved only 800k troops.
The Main island invasion involved 1.1 million.
1.9 million troops, I will give you another 100k and make it 2 mil.
50% casualties? bull****....
So then where do the 'millions' come from?
Its made up as well...
The Japaneses were looking for a way out already. They sent a message through their people in Moscow that they would be willing to surrender as long as the Emperor could retain his powers.
After the bomb the Emperor was still their.
Once the Soviets over ran Manchuria that was left of the Japanese economy would have collapsed.
Did it save lives? Maybe but who knows... You certainly can't make any claim as to 'how many'.
Boroda is correct however that one of the reason argued for dropping the bomb was to demonstrate its destructive power to the Soviets to improve US negotiating position in Potsdam. This isn't made up stuff like your claim of 'millions' it's historical fact.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
"I think the most telling aspect is we used them when they were necesary but, havnt used them again in anger since"
Good point though the fact the Russians had em might have something to do with this?
Nope. Unfortunately Boroda missed the point.. if we were just evil bastards we woulda just taken over the world in 1945-1946.
Fact is, if Stalin had the bomb, he'd a used it. Fact is, if Hitler had it, he'd a used it.
Any guesses as to where either of them would have stopped?
Now, following that question Boroda's answer would be 'we didn't need it, we already beat the germans, and were in the process of beating the japanese when you stopped the war by your cowardly use of this inhuman weapon'.
.. and then we'd just devolve into 5 pages of insults and propaganda rehash. Kinda pointless.
Reality is we used it to end one war, and then used the threat of using it to prevent the start of another.. and over the course of 50 years of toe to toe confontation on the world stage history bears out the veracity of the American Policy with regards to the use of Nuclear Weapons. If you use 'em, we'll vaporize you.. no mercy; no quarter, your existence as a nation will become a footnote in a history text under 'really dumb military ideas'.
The message remains the same, depsite the change of players at the table.. if any nation uses one, we'll likely declare that nation 'insane' and eradicate it. Yah; we may take some lumps.. at worst, we'll all be dead.. then it'll be up to the ailens to write our epitaph because this is certain..
there will be NOBODY left.
And therin lies the simplicty and beauty of non-proliferation and Mutually Assured Destruction. Bust the treaty, get nukes.. you get your cities programed into a target list. Use one, your cities vanish. *poof*.
Cruel.. but hey; it's worked for over 50 years. Pleasant? Nope. We've got Damocles' Sword dangling overhead every single second of every day.
Sleep Tight World.. the arrogant evil unpredictable nations with nukes are out there. Still. Watching. Waiting. Eyeballing the Button. Thinking about it.
Thank us later.
-
Did they know the power of the bomb or was it just said to them "Heres a bomb, drop it here, here, or here."
-
The knew. In detail. Trained for it's delivery; were well informed of the power of the device, it's risks.. they knew. Willingly accepted the risks, did the mission.
That sez something about the determination of those men.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nope. Unfortunately Boroda missed the point.. if we were just evil bastards we woulda just taken over the world in 1945-1946.
Hang, in April 1945 "allied" forces could be thrown back into the Atlantic on bayonets and courage, even without tanks and artillery. There was no way to win a war with USSR even when you planned to use 300+ atomic bombs, and you understand it.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Fact is, if Stalin had the bomb, he'd a used it. Fact is, if Hitler had it, he'd a used it
Any guesses as to where either of them would have stopped?
Stalin stopped at Elba river. After severely testing the strength of American troops, throwing them back like kids and then withdrawing and sending apologies. And it was 3 months before a first nuclear test.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Now, following that question Boroda's answer would be 'we didn't need it, we already beat the germans, and were in the process of beating the japanese when you stopped the war by your cowardly use of this inhuman weapon'.
It was not cowardice. It had a reason. You had to show something more then a report of an explosion in a desert "brighter then thousand suns". You showed it. Well done. A spectacular and educating experiment :(
Originally posted by Hangtime
.. and then we'd just devolve into 5 pages of insults and propaganda rehash. Kinda pointless.
Sorry, I just point at obvious things. In Soviet times official propaganda never spoke about a possibility of starting hostilities with "allies" in 1945, they only mentioned Patton reinforcing nazi troops in "allied" occupation zone.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Reality is we used it to end one war, and then used the threat of using it to prevent the start of another..
"Another" war was prevented by Soviet leadership. As I said above - "allies" didn'r have a sibgle chance against Soviet Army. "Five of this Americans are not worth a single Russian" - a quote from a German Tiger company commander.
Originally posted by Hangtime
and over the course of 50 years of toe to toe confontation on the world stage history bears out the veracity of the American Policy with regards to the use of Nuclear Weapons. If you use 'em, we'll vaporize you.. no mercy; no quarter, your existence as a nation will become a footnote in a history text under 'really dumb military ideas'.
Hang. Please, get real. You don't have a monopoly since 1949. You'll be the first to get "vaporized" :( And your unique geographical position will not save you "(
Originally posted by Hangtime
The message remains the same, depsite the change of players at the table.. if any nation uses one, we'll likely declare that nation 'insane' and eradicate it. Yah; we may take some lumps.. at worst, we'll all be dead.. then it'll be up to the ailens to write our epitaph because this is certain...
Same thing about Russian Federaion now, with only difference: any nation starting an aggressive war against RF or our allies will face the nuclear threat. We can't afford a full-scale conventional war now, so we simply launch.
Originally posted by Hangtime
there will be NOBODY left.
Do you have the guts to do it fot Microsoft or Haliburton?...
Originally posted by Hangtime
And therin lies the simplicty and beauty of non-proliferation and Mutually Assured Destruction. Bust the treaty, get nukes.. you get your cities programed into a target list. Use one, your cities vanish. *poof*.
Any massive launch will result in a massive launch from RF and PRC. It' simple. You are unable to wave your nuclear mace since 1949.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Cruel.. but hey; it's worked for over 50 years. Pleasant? Nope. We've got Damocles' Sword dangling overhead every single second of every day.
Isn't it insane?... We have our nukes as a matter of survival of our nation, you confess that it's a matter of political blackmail... Do youreally believe what you said? If it's so, and some people at the top share your views - then something has to be done :(
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sleep Tight World.. the arrogant evil unpredictable nations with nukes are out there. Still. Watching. Waiting. Eyeballing the Button. Thinking about it.
Sleep. There are some nations that will prevent insane regimes from burning you alive.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Thank us later.
We already thank you for showing the nature of the things.
You can't force us to drink coke. We prefer tea and kvas.
Was my reply as pathetic as Hang's post? ;)
-
B29s were allready doing as much damage with conventional fire bombs as they did with the A-bomb. They killed 100,000 in one night when they bombed tokyo. And they haven't bombed one of our harbours since.
I recommend watching "Fog of War" it's an interview of one of the men who helped plan US WWII bombing strategies. Robert McNamara.
-
yea Suave what the hippie proponets don't realize were that causualty counts in both bombs were actually relativly low considering. The firebombing of tokyo killed WAY more japs than both the bombs.
Then you consider an invasion. I draws alot of paralels today that if emperor hadn't surrendered after the invasion or there was a military coup with no surrender the death toll would be in the millions. Japan wouldnt even be close to being the same nation it is today. There would be an insurgancy and an occupation that would make Iraq look like a police action.
But of course all this is hindsite
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Stalin stopped at Elba river. After severely testing the strength of American troops, throwing them back like kids and then withdrawing and sending apologies. And it was 3 months before a first nuclear test.
I am unfamiliar with any US/Soviet battle near the Elbe... do you have any details?
What Army / divisions / generals were involved?
How many casualties?
this is what I know about the forces meeting at the Elbe (http://www.usmlm.org/home/russians/wwii-torgau.htm)
-
Sorry, answering in a mode offered by Hang - I used a common legend/myth. never approved by Soviet propaganda, that first units that met Americans on Elbe attacked them and had to be literally pulled back by high command - they attacked US troops because they didn't speak Russian and had strange uniforms. Some versions said that this attacks were ordered from "above", to test American combat strength. No proof other then some vets telling "baika"s. But the quote from "Tiger" company commander is true.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Learn to fight first, then go to wars. Sorry.
So you're saying that the 25 or 30 million the Soviet Union lost in WW2 was due to them not knowing how to fight?:eek:
-
See Rule #5
-
Only ten million then.
So you're saying that the slightly less than 10 million the Soviet Union lost in WW2 was due to them not knowing how to fight?:eek:
The whole "second front" in 1944 had one purpose: not to let USSR get the contol of the whole Europe and to get some profit on Soviet lives after the end was near and obvious.
If that is so, why did Stalin push for the invasion of France at the Terhan Conference?
-
Hang, in April 1945 "allied" forces could be thrown back into the Atlantic on bayonets and courage, even without tanks and artillery. There was no way to win a war with USSR even when you planned to use 300+ atomic bombs, and you understand it.
Fantasy. And another goofy empty commie boast. Your cities were inside our B-29 range.. your supply lines vulnerable, your navy almost non-existant. Frankly, you'd have been pretty much a push-over.
After severely testing the strength of American troops, throwing them back like kids and then withdrawing and sending apologies.
LOL. Fantasy. Another commie boast.
Hang. Please, get real. You don't have a monopoly since 1949. You'll be the first to get "vaporized" And your unique geographical position will not save you "
Yep in 1949 we had 200+ Nuclear Bombs. You had 1. Get real? LOL!! In 1950 we 298, you had 5. We had a fleet of B-36's, you had a copy of the B-29.. and still not the range to reach us, penetrate our air defenses. So how were you gonna deliver yer 5 bombs? US Mail?
Isn't it insane?... We have our nukes as a matter of survival of our nation, you confess that it's a matter of political blackmail... Do youreally believe what you said? If it's so, and some people at the top share your views - then something has to be done
Boroda.. when will it seep thru that vodka soaked and commie programed mind.. We were not interested in 'attack'.. if we were, we would have in 1950. History does not lie.. why do you insist on the 'national survival' line as a reason for your governments twisted torment of it's people fo 50 years?
"Another" war was prevented by Soviet leadership. As I said above - "allies" didn'r have a sibgle chance against Soviet Army. "Five of this Americans are not worth a single Russian" - a quote from a German Tiger company commander.
Ah. I see.. based on a defeated officers commentary, (and Kruschev's shoe) you've explained the superiority of Russian Soldat. You might wanna check with the Chinese at Chosin for a second opinion.
You can't force us to drink coke. We prefer tea and kvas.
Which explains the huge popularity of Coke and Levi's in your country.. and the absolute absence of any kind of Russian products in America. Be sure and get back to me when your forigen aid and food or Russian Bank loans to US busineses reaches the one freaking dollar mark.
LOL.. pitiful nyekulturny arguments, Boroda. Really, I expected (even hoped) for better. Maybe next time, enh?
-
This is so entertaining, both of you. Please do continue. :aok
-
I already set a 5 page limit. ;)
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Boroda
My dear distant friend... Out of 20-27 millions of victims only less then 10 millions were military losses. Soviet/German military casualities ratio is something like 1.5/1 or even smaller. Mostly because of a catastrophe of 1941.
Two SS tank divisions crushed an "allied" front in Ardennes, and your leaders asked Stalin to start a Visla-Oder operation earlier then planned to save your "glorious troops" from a complete defeat. Two panzer divisions... And it costed USSR several hundreed thousands unnessesary casualities... Just to save some anglo-saxons who can't fight without toilet paper and chewing gum... Sorry.
The whole "second front" in 1944 had one purpose: not to let USSR get the contol of the whole Europe and to get some profit on Soviet lives after the end was near and obvious.
Remember Katyn!
Karaya
-
What obligation did the Soviets have to enter into a war with Japan prior to the agreements at Yalta?
Absolutely none...
The Soviets and Japan were not at war...
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was one of the largest and most impressive logistical problems faced by any side during the War.
They turned right around from capturing Berlin to over running Manchuria. Manchuria wasn't a small back water it was the heart of the Japanese war economy at that point.
So the Soviets didn't need to do 'a damn thing' to help with Japan. It wasn't their war. It was at the insistence of the western Allies that they declared war on Japan any way. No nation could have over come the logistical problem the Soviets did in that short of time.
You can rationalize dropping the bombs any way you want. But here is no evidence that they 'saved millions'. Japan was putting out peace feelers and a full invasion of Japan would not have been necessary even with out the bomb.
Part of the logic in the argument for dropping the bomb was to demonstrate the bomb to the world (i.e. Soviets) and to improve the Western allies position at Potsdam.
Miko posted this some time ago:
Admiral William D. Leahy – 5 star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942–1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945–1949 (Truman):
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake ever to drop it . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945):
"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb . . . the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China:
"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces:
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."
Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy:
"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. . . . I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."
Arnold, quoted by Eaker:
"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision:
"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."
W. Averill Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces), and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson:
"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."
General Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum of loss of 'face'. . . . It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
former President Herbert Hoover:
"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
Richard M. Nixon:
"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it. . . . He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.
-
Yeah, but what do admirals and generals know about war...
;)
-
Apparently not as much as the BBS generals...
-
a conference to discuss pre-invasion casualties was held at the White House on June 18, 1945, between President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur submitted rather optimistic casualty estimates. This caused Adm. William D. Leahy, Truman's military advisor, to take charge of the session. Based on the experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in an invasion of Japan, 30% to 35% of U.S. soldiers would be killed or wounded during the first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what Leahy said. The president remarked that the invasion would create another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed.
Suddenly, and only after being advised about the buildup of Japanese forces and fortifications by Magic intelligence, MacArthur medical staff revised its pre-invasion needs for hospital beds upwards by 300%. MacArthur's chief surgeon, Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties.
Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.
-
Yah know... the BBS generals have never lost a war. :D
-
Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties.
The invasion plan for Kyushu was based on 800k troops...
50% casulties? In what campaign did the US face 50% casulties over all?
There weren't 30 - 35% US casulties at Okinawa. Total casulties were 72,000 total (dead, wounded and non-combat related) out of a force total of 300k (18,900 dead, 38,000 wounded and 33k non-combat casulties...)
Combat casulties totaled around 56900
There's no solid evidence that an invasion would have been inevitable. The assumption that dropping the bomb prevented invasion isn't 'solid'...
You haven't seen the 'Magic Summaries'. All the info in your post comes directly from a Wall Street Journal article...
-
Yup. The marines would land unopposed, the locals would surrender and present ceramonial rice cakes and saki to the liberating marines, the kamakazi's would chicken out and opt to not die for a lost war and the japanese military would high tail it for the mountainous interior were we could carpet bomb 'em at our leisure.
A cakewalk. Everybody knew the japs were beat, even the japs.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
...There's no solid evidence that an invasion would have been inevitable. The assumption that dropping the bomb prevented invasion isn't 'solid'...
You haven't seen the 'Magic Summaries'. All the info in your post comes directly from a Wall Street Journal article...
Have you seen the magic summaries? Since when is the WSJ not a decent source?
Marshall wasn't convinced that dropping the bombs would cause a surrender and he was planning that the invasion(s) would still be necessary.
(Bland, George C. Marshall: Interviews and Reminiscences for Forrest C. Pogue, pg. 424).
In 1957, Marshall gave some details of his invasion plans for the atomic bomb:
"There were three corps to come in there [to invade Japan], as I recall. ...there were to be three bombs for each corps that was landing. One or two, but probably one, as a preliminary, then this landing, then another one further inland against the immediate supports, and then the third against any troops that might try to come through the mountains from up on the Inland Sea. That was the rough idea in our minds."
-
Yes, didnt you know Japan had surrendered to Russia weeks befor August 1945 but evil america attacked Japan with aggression just to prove what bastards they are.
Sometimes I think the entire world should be blown away and ended like the suffering of a dog with no hope.
Honestly, just to get it over with.
-
PS what do wotan, sandman and boroda all have in common?......
-
Somehow I think Boroda is only unhappy about the atom bomb attacks because they stopped the war beefore the soviets could invade Japan and claim a part of it post war and create the type of socilist wonderland like they did in eastern europe.
-
Just to save some anglo-saxons who can't fight without toilet paper and chewing gum... Sorry.
not really respectfull.
The russian effort was important i respect that.
Im just glad the nazi's didnt want to win the hearts of the russian people instead they just terrorized them. Wich left them no choice than to fight for russia.
Offcourse The allied experience with the japanese was to limited compared with the russian uber army.
The whole pacific war was unimportant for outcome.
Only the russian front that was WW2
Wich is pronounced wrong and should go in the history books as the 2nd russian war.
All allied effort was just show.
Thanks to the evil allies the coldwar started after the war.
While the could be one communistic europe.
Imagine what paradise that could have been.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
PS what do wotan, sandman and boroda all have in common?......
They all share you as their pet?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Have you seen the magic summaries? Since when is the WSJ not a decent source?
The problem isn't the WSJ, its in understanding the context in which those casualty figures came into play in forming an opinion on what to do next.
I am sure you would agree that the casualty figures are very high and probably represent the a 'worse case scenario' if not out right propaganda.
Were those figures discussed as reason for or against the bomb? Or for some other reason like maybe to push a peace agreement with out direct invasion?
Ultimately the bomb was dropped but there were many reasons put forth over the years as to how that decision was arrived at. I am sure the decision was based on many diffferent aspects, some we know, some we don't.
Marshall wasn't convinced that dropping the bombs would cause a surrender and he was planning that the invasion(s) would still be necessary.
[/b]
Its a General Job to plan for every situation. He would not have been doing his job if he didn't plan for an invasion.
I am sure the US government has 'plans' for all sorts of 'unlikely things'.
The Japanese went to the Soviets hoping they would intervene on their behalf with the western allies.
The Soviets didn't need any deal at all with Japan. Whether they invaded Japan or not the surrender of Japan would have left a power vacuum and the Soviets would taken what they wanted of Asia anyway.
Had they decided to make a deal with Japan not go to war for 'parts of Asia' or whether then went to war and kept what they took the end result would have been the same.
Japan was on its last leg and if we ignore any one of the events that happened at the time they surrendered or if we over state the affect of any one thing over the other then then we won't ever arrive at a clear understand.
The lack of a deal with the Soviets and the subsequent invasion of Manchuria should not be under estimated in the decision for surrender.
When asking the question 'did the bomb' defeat Japan its only fair to look at all the circumstances. Not every one even at the time the bomb was being dropped agreed it was necessary. Not every one at the time believed that invasion was necessary. It wasn't limited to either or...
You may want believe the altruistic nature of the US government 'only did it to save lives' but that doesn't make it true. There were many reasons.
That said if I was marine or soldier awaiting my invasion orders, expecting an invasion then I would have been happy if all of Japan would have been nuked to keep me from going. However, things aren't always black and white.
If you want to say that Japan surrendered because of the bomb alone then it shouldn't be to hard to strip away all the other events and isolate the 'bomb' as the 'reason'.
Yup. The marines would land unopposed, the locals would surrender and present ceramonial rice cakes and saki to the liberating marines, the kamakazi's would chicken out and opt to not die for a lost war and the japanese military would high tail it for the mountainous interior were we could carpet bomb 'em at our leisure.
A cakewalk. Everybody knew the japs were beat, even the japs.
Strawman fallacy nonsense, quote who said anything approaching that...
PS what do wotan, sandman and boroda all have in common?...
We are all pinko commies? You don't know anything about me...
-
Just a thought, but why not just ask the grunts that were going to be invading Japan, how they felt about it.? I mean Russian/Americans, and the Brits. Lets see what they would have thought about dropping a bomb or two that might end the war and save their necks; as opposed to them going right on in there and invading mainland Japan. Its always easy to monday morning quaterback, (that means judging with the benifit of hind-sight, for non-American bbs'ers), when you have the benifit of history to back you up. The decision was made using the best available intelligence with the troops welfare foremost in the minds of the leaders involved in making the decision. I'd like to see anyone here try and make the right call. And who is to say that anyone is right? It's war, the real kind. The kind where real men and women fought and died. You guys get up here on your stumps shouting pure propaganda from your point of view. Thats all well and good but jeeze, you are all spinning around in circles and getting no where.
Were there mistakes made? Yes. Certainly by both sides, but they were mistakes made in the heat of battle that luckily few of you have ever had to experience. Instead of beating each other up over which side did this or this side did that, my daddy can beat up your daddy mumbo jumbo, try to figure out a way that it doesnt happen again. And for the punters out there no this isnt a "...can't we all ...just get along?" speach. It's pathetic reading this crap watching everyone swell up their chest with bravado that in truth they really do not have.
Bottomline is this, no one here could have made the right choice with the first a-bomb. But, it's always easy to jump on a band wagon and start saying to anyone in listening distance that you disagree with the decision. YOU WEREN'T THERE TO MAKE THE DECISION. Thank God that I and all of you dont have to make the decision.
Man this crap is real life and I dont know about you but I come here to escape from it not constantly here about it. Now run along and play nicely with each other.
The crowd is hushed and Krull steps of his own stupid arse stump.
PLAY BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:aok
Oh and btw dont bag on the troops that carry out the orders. They are the ones that protect your liberal butts in the first place.
-
This is great.
This hasn't been discussed since the last time it was discussed, which was right after the time before that, that it was discussed.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The problem isn't the WSJ, its in understanding the context in which those casualty figures came into play in forming an opinion on what to do next.
You brought up the WSJ as my source as though my source had something to do with this dicussion.
When asking the question 'did the bomb' defeat Japan its only fair to look at all the circumstances. Not every one even at the time the bomb was being dropped agreed it was necessary. Not every one at the time believed that invasion was necessary. It wasn't limited to either or...
Marshall believed it to be necessary...did you read the excerpt where he was discussing the tactical use of nukes in support of invasion?
You may want believe the altruistic nature of the US government 'only did it to save lives' but that doesn't make it true. There were many reasons.
The biggest reason was to end the war.
The bombing of cities was unfortunately standard practice of both sides during the war. Nuke or firebomb, 509th or the 8th, dead is dead.
The use of a single bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki was no worse than the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. Those cities were destroyed and in the case of Tokyo, more people were killed outright in that firebombing than the nuking of Hiroshima. (although the nuke probably ultimately killed more due to after effects.)
-
I'm with AWKrull on this one.
My dad got into the war late. He was trained & ready to airdrop into the Japanese islands had invasion been required.
While I regret that dropping the bomb was necessary. I accept the fact that it was required.
Go ask anyone still alive who would have been in the invasion of japan. They'll tell you much better this way.
We'd already lost way to many men to lose more without need.
As to the idea of "starving" the Japanese out with blockde. You really consider that humane? Better 500,000 die in a couple of bomb blasts than 5 million die from lack of food, medicine, etc.
Go back & read what the Japanese were saying & doing at the time. They were training the wives & children to defend to the last man.
Last, as to the claims of the fantasic Soviet soldiers. If they are so good why did German troops get within sight of Moscow? Why did it take so long to free Stalingrad?
-
You brought up the WSJ as my source as though my source had something to do with this dicussion.
Your source wasn't 'sourced' it was cut-n-pasted with out any reference to where it originated...
That's why it was 'brought up'...
Marshall believed it to be necessary...did you read the excerpt where he was discussing the tactical use of nukes in support of invasion?
Sure I read it but its not credible given that we know the number of available nukes the US had ready at the time the invasion was scheduled for.
His 'belief' is filled with 'as I recall' and retold in 1957...
the date for the invasion of Kyushu (Operation Olympic) as X-Day, December 1, 1945, and for Honshu (Operation Coronet) as Y-Day, March 1, 1946.
From the Estimated U.S. and Soviet/Russian Nuclear Stockpile, 1945-94
1945 - Total = 2 Stockpile = 2 - Strategic = 2 - Megaton = 0.04
by the end of '46 it was 9 total for an MT = 0.18
In June, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary released previously secret numbers for the total U.S. stockpile for the years 1945-61, and the megatonnage totals for the period 1945-94. These numbers are shown in the table. From a variety of often-contradictory official sources, we calculated the "strategic" column. Strategic warheads are those constructed for inter-continental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers traditionally categorized in the SALT and START talks as "strategic." Though not absolutely precise, subtracting the strategic number from the total number provides an approximate number of non-strategic or "tactical" nuclear weapons.
Here (http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=nd94norris)
The biggest reason was to end the war.
The bombing of cities was unfortunately standard practice of both sides during the war. Nuke or firebomb, 509th or the 8th, dead is dead.
The use of a single bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki was no worse than the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. Those cities were destroyed and in the case of Tokyo, more people were killed outright in that firebombing than the nuking of Hiroshima. (although the nuke probably ultimately killed more due to after effects.)
Well its been documented by historians that one of the points for dropping the bomb was in demonstrating it to the Soviets to improve the western allies position. Some refer to this as the actual beginning of the 'Cold War'.
Saying the 'biggest reason' was such and such is nothing more then speculation. Especially considering you don't account for what the full affect of losing Manchuria to the Soviets would have had on Japanese decision making. If 100k can burn to death in Tokyo there's no clear indication that the 2 bombs were the definitive reason for surrender.
There is no simplistic answer to why...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Sure I read it but its not credible given that we know the number of available nukes the US had ready at the time the invasion was scheduled for.
So you believe that the US couldn't have produced 6 to 9 bombs by the end of '45... Far be it for us to believe Marshall knew what he was thinking.
-
See Rule #5
-
This thread has not only deviated from its original topic (which looks like nothing more than a troll), but has also degenerated into nothing more than a chest-beating-who-can-outdo-and-shock-better-than-the-last-post thread.