Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RAIDER14 on August 06, 2006, 10:59:32 AM
-
"On this day in 1945, at 8:16 a.m. Japanese time, an American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, drops the world's first atom bomb, over the city of Hiroshima"
History Channel.com (http://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=worldwarii)
-
...and the crowd went wild!!!!!
-
It wasn't the first.
The first was detonated in New Mexico a month earlier.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
It wasn't the first.
The first was detonated in New Mexico a month earlier.
it was the first used in combat
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
it was the first used in combat
It more like: “the first one used on civilians.”
-
The second was used on Nagasaki ( guess thats how its spelled )
but due to current events, may suggest a place to drop the thrid one at.........................:)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1154882633_tibbets.jpg)
"Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr. was born in Quincy, Illinois on February 23rd, 1915. Later his parents moved to Florida where, at the age of twelve, Paul had his first airplane ride. As part of an advertising stunt, he threw Baby Ruth candy bars, with paper parachutes attached, from a biplane flying over a crowd gathered at the Hialeah horse track near Miami. From that day on, Paul knew he had to fly.
His teen years were spent attending Western Military Academy. Later he attended the Universities of Florida and Cincinnati in pursuit of a career in medicine, but his determination to fly was greater than that of a career both parents wanted for him. So, on February 25th, 1937, Paul enlisted as a flying cadet in the Army Air Corps at Fort Thomas, Kentucky. A year later he got his pilot wings at Kelly Field, Texas and was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant.
In February 1942, Paul became the Squadron Commander of the 340th Bomb Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group, destined for England. He flew 25 missions in B-17s, including the first American Flying Fortress raid against occupied Europe. In November of that year he was in Algeria leading the first bombardment missions in support of the North African invasion.
In March 1943, he was returned to the states to test the combat capability of Boeing's new Super Fortress, the B-29, an airplane plagued with problems. He taught himself to fly the airplane and subsequently flew it about 400 hours in tests. This eventually gave him more experience as to the capabilities and limitations of a B-29 than any other pilot at that time.
In September 1944, Paul was briefed on the Manhattan Project, the code name for the development of the atom bomb. It was to be his responsibility to organize and train a unit to deliver these weapons in combat operations. He would also determine and supervise the modifications necessary to make the B-29 capable of delivering the weapons, and for this, the unit had to be self-sufficient. Secrecy was paramount. The unit would support Los Alamos with flight test airplanes to establish ballistics and detonator reliability to explode the bombs. Paul was told, "You are on your own. No one knows what to tell you. Use normal channels to the extent possible. If you are denied something you need, restate your need is for "SILVERPLATE" (a codename) and your request will be honored without question."
Paul requisitioned 15 new B-29s and specified they be stripped of turrets and armor plating except for the tail gunner position; that fuel-injected engines and new technology reversible-pitch propellers be installed; and the bomb bay re-configured to suspend, from a single point, ten thousand pounds. Such an airplane would fly higher, faster, and above the effective range of anti-aircraft fire.
A B-29 bombardment squadron, the 393rd, in its final stage of training, and Wendover Army Air Base located on the Utah/Nevada border were selected by Paul for "starters". The 393rd was fully equipped and the base had a fully manned "housekeeping" group. Wendover was isolated but close enough to Los Alamos to work together. The Salton Sea was an ideal distance for bombing practice. Then on December 17th, 1944, formal orders were issued activating the 509th Composite Group, consisting of seven subordinate units. In March 1945 the First Ordnance Squadron, a unit designed to carry out the technical phases of the group responsibilities, became part of the 509th. The personnel count now exceeded 1500 enlisted men and some 200 officers. Then, quietly, the group started moving overseas to Tinian Island in the Marianas chain. On the afternoon of August 5th, 1945, President Truman gave his approval to use the weapons against Japan. By the time the plane left, it's familiar arrowhead tail motif had been changed on both sides to the letter "R" in a circle, the standard i.d. for the Sixth bomb group. The idea behind the change was to confuse the enemy if they made contact, which they did not. At 02:30 A.M. August 6th, the Enola Gay lifted off North Field with Paul Tibbets and his crew en route to Hiroshima. At exactly 09:15 plus 15 seconds the world's first atomic bomb exploded. The course of history and the nature of warfare was changed.
The Enola Gay landed back at Tinian at 2:58 P.M. and the plane and crew were greeted by General Spaatz, a large contingent of brass, and jubilant GIs. General Spaatz decorated Tibbets with the Distinguished Service Cross and the other crew members with Air Medals. This tremendous accomplishment, which not only affected the outcome of World War II but altered the history of the world, was not merely a single event. Rather, it was a culmination of events throughout which Paul Tibbets played a pivotal role."
-
And then...
Nagasaki:
(http://www.tangischools.org/schools/phs/think/man/bockscar1.gif)
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nagasaki/images/NG30.jpg)
-
Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.
-
I've never seen events bring about such a hasty end to a war that was anything but over. For that, the event was memorable. For the loss of life, it was not.
to those that brought an end to that war.
Condolences to those that had to live with the impacts of these two events.
-
Originally posted by Russian
It more like: “the first one used on civilians.”
this kind of bombs are only made for killing civilians.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
this kind of bombs are only made for killing civilians.
I think the term you're looking for isn't "civilians", but rather "areas without discrimination". That is, unless this is a special uranium that can detect combatants from non combatants and eradicate only the "civilians".
-
Mini D this kind of bombs are not made to kill a Tank, a Platoon
or an Airfield, destroying whole Citys is theyr job.
Today its called "deterrence" and you know why, see Hiroshima.
-
Actually, they can kill air bases, factories and all sorts of military targets. I'm not the one pretending they only kill civilians.
You'd like the Nagasaki museum ghost. According to them, the bomb only destroyed school buildings. A port is a port.
-
There were military installations in Hiroshima. It was a legit target.
You want to start stammering about civilians being killed......WW2 killed over 30 million of them.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You want to start stammering about civilians being killed......WW2 killed over 30 million of them.
absolutely No, but it also dont change anything for what this bombs are made.
-
It may be the bombs were made for ending that war and preventing any other world wars.
Hmmmmmmmmm.... could be they worked then.
-
Lesse, number of world wars since 1945.....
Yep, atomic deterrence seems to be working. There have been skirmishes, but nothing like the unfettered bloodshed of WWI and WWII.
-
what are bombs for but to destroy stuff and kill people?
Also, Atomic bombs could be used to divert the path of an incoming asteroid hellbent on destroying earth, so there :D
-
could be they worked?
watch the daily news, we are far more closer to use this weapon again
then before.
This days we have discussions here about civilians got hit (ie: Lebanon/Israel).
Now i'm ask why do they dont drop the Bomb over Lebanon,
of course they would hit civilians too, but mainly they would destroy the enemy.
Thats Hiroshima ? right.
-
As has already been stated in total war the goal is to destroy the enemy, their military, their means and resources needed to sustain conflict to include the population that helps sustain the war effort.
Much of the Japanese production was decentralized in an attempt to maintain production in the face of factory destruction. They were pretty darn successful at it too. That is one of the reasons for the incendiary bombing of population centers innitiated by LeMay. Those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no more dead than those who died in the firebombing of Tokyo, where more in fact died in one raid than in Horoshima.
-
japan was worse, they tried to bomb the trees in Oregon.
thank maya we were the 1st the set them up the bomb
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
watch the daily news...[/url]
Problem #1
we are far more closer to use this weapon again
then before.
What do you base this on? Daily news?
This days we have discussions here about civilians got hit (ie: Lebanon/Israel).
Now i'm ask why do they dont drop the Bomb over Lebanon,
of course they would hit civilians too, but mainly they would destroy the enemy.
Thats Hiroshima ? right.
Problem #2.
Did you actually compare hiroshima to lebanon? I cannot believe you did that. I cannot believe you are this obtuse.
Nobody is selling the atomic bomb as a cure-all war ender. You cannot, however, deny that it ended the war with Japan. It did it in a matter of days. Do you think the war was destined to end then anyways? Did these bombs accomplish their goals by completely eliminating the enemy?
Japan had nowhere else to go, they were backed into a corner and they weren't giving up. There were other options, but none that involved fewer civilian casualties. To this day, people see hiroshima and nagasaki as being more devistating than the fire bombings of tokyo... numbers be dammed. The fire bombings in tokyo claimed more lives, more property and caused more destruction... and did nothing to end the war. What was the difference between the fire bombings and the two atomic bombs?
-
Considering Japan was arming all citizens to fight (albeit with sharpened stick)..... How many lives were actually saved by dropping the atomic bombs.
By some estimates as many as 10 million Japanese casualties, if the US had invaded the mainland. Probably most would be those civilians with the sticks.
Bronk
-
..how many lives saved... estimates.... if's....
Bronk, this is all based on what, your imagination?
sorry to say but this leads to nowhere.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What was the difference between the fire bombings and the two atomic bombs?
Two of the prominent critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard,
who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written
letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to
play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped
atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic
bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
-
A "civilian" with a stick used as a weapon is a combant.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
A "civilian" with a stick used as a weapon is a combant.
I agree.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Two of the prominent critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard,
who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written
letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to
play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped
atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic
bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
Now lets apply your argument here .
What if ... imagination.
Yea that works well.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Now lets apply your argument here .
What if ... imagination.
Yea that works well.
Bronk
sorry, but we didnt drop the bomb.
-
Hell yes... drop that ****er twice!
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Two of the prominent critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard,
who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written
letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to
play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped
atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic
bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
Victors write the rules...
you guys lost.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
Your quote did not answer the question of Mini D...
100,000 killed in Tokyo... conventionally....
100,000 killed in Hiroshima... atomically....
which is worse?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry, but we didnt drop the bomb.
And we didn't invade so we won't know the jap casualty numbers ... just estimates. Get it now Mr pompous.
Ohh still sore you lost ?
Bronk
-
uups sorry, looks like i'm alone here and lost, wrong forum.
I doubt any more discussion about this will lead us nowhere ;)
Nevermind, you guys won!
-
No!... No!... let's discuss this...
Perhaps if we fully discuss this we can undo all the distruction of WW2.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your quote did not answer the question of Mini D...
100,000 killed in Tokyo... conventionally....
100,000 killed in Hiroshima... atomically....
which is worse?
good point!
now, I'll make one:
- killed by suicide bomber
- killed in your sleep by laser guided missle
which is worse?
-
Was it Fat Man or Little Boy that was laser guided?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
good point!
now, I'll make one:
- killed by suicide bomber
- killed in your sleep by laser guided missle
which is worse? [/B]
1st is the intentional targeting of civies
2nd Is the collateral damage of trying to have limited war. Would you like it like WWII where it became unlimited?
Bronk
-
Killed by a suicide bomber is worse, no contest. If you're asleep you won't even notice getting killed, so the method doesn't matter.
Now, one for you:
Which is worse
- Initiating armed aggression
- Answering armed aggression after being attacked
-
This happened over sixty years ago.
Is arguing about right and wrong going to change what happened and why?
-
Originally posted by texace
This happened over sixty years ago.
Is arguing about right and wrong going to change what happened and why?
Why certainly. Dontcha know that here in the O`club we can fix everything from the break of day to a broken heart. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Why certainly. Dontcha know that here in the O`club we can fix everything from the break of day to a broken heart. :)
Shows just how much I pay attention. ;)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Why certainly. Dontcha know that here in the O`club we can fix everything from the break of day to a broken heart. :)
we have a Delorean capable of time travel :D
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
uups sorry, looks like i'm alone here and lost, wrong forum.
I doubt any more discussion about this will lead us nowhere ;)
Nevermind, you guys won!
There is no question the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
Over 150000 civilians died, many at the hands of the Japanese army or even their own hands. If you close your eyes to this truth then you're lieing to yourself.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
There is no question the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
Over 150000 civilians died, many at the hands of the Japanese army or even their own hands. If you close your eyes to this truth then you're lieing to yourself.
I lived in Okinawa for 6 years and visited "suicide cliffs" several times. It was there that over 2,000 civilians lept to their deaths to avoid being tortured by the monstrous Americans as they were assured they would by the Japanese military.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry, but we didnt drop the bomb.
I suppose your ovens and gas chambers were used exclusively against military objectives.
Your 'but at least we didn't' line of reasoning, when applied to WWII, is laughable. Whatever it is that 'you didn't', you only didn't because either you didn't have enough time, or enough troops.
-
Wasn't the 2nd one dropped partly to give Stalin pause for thought i.e. dont get any ideas about expanding the USSR to the Atlantic?
Not sure where I heard that, plus its probably pretty far down the list of reasons.
-
Originally posted by Trikky
Wasn't the 2nd one dropped partly to give Stalin pause for thought i.e. dont get any ideas about expanding the USSR to the Atlantic?
Not sure where I heard that, plus its probably pretty far down the list of reasons.
Some have suggested that but other reasons like the fact that the Japanese didn't surrender after the first and it was needed to prove to them it wasn't a one time deal seems more likely to me. They certainly wasted no time unconditionally surrendering after the second.
-
We are the only ones to have ever used it in combat...in a war we were winning. I wonder if our enemies ever wonder how we would handle a war we were losing?
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
We are the only ones to have ever used it in combat...in a war we were winning. I wonder if our enemies ever wonder how we would handle a war we were losing?
Somehow I doubt that our enemies care about the things that can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Civilian lives included.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
could be they worked?
watch the daily news, we are far more closer to use this weapon again
then before.
This days we have discussions here about civilians got hit (ie: Lebanon/Israel).
Now i'm ask why do they dont drop the Bomb over Lebanon,
of course they would hit civilians too, but mainly they would destroy the enemy.
Thats Hiroshima ? right.
The NUKE was something in the neighbourhood of a 20.000 lbs bomb.
Single-blast. Not like what was poured over Tokyo, - possibly more deaths there than Hiroshima. (Incendiaries)
The Tokyo bombing didn't stop the war. But Hiroshima, - and/or Nagasaki DID.
Would Hiroshima alone have done the job? Questionable. The Japanese military counsel had a meeting after Hiroshima and decided that the enemy could only have had one of these weapons, and therefore Japan would continue fighting.
Nagasaki changed that view, as well as the information about the might of the blast which was pouring in.
It would probably have been enough to blow up just about anything for that sake for the demonstration of the power, and such a suggestion was actually put to words inside the USA control system.
(Why not NUKE a little island near Tokyo or something like that)
However, the suggestion was overruled and Hiroshima was on the list.
And Ghost, FYI:
The USA is not at war with Lebanon, - nor is Israel.
Japan was not directly at war with the Philippines population either, yet some 100.000 Philippine civilians were slain by the Japanese at the fall of Manilla. Similar butchery as Nanking.
Well, along with some 15.000.000 dead Chinese, I guess that's ok because they got hacked to death instead of Nuked.
Bottom line: Japan went way over the limit, and the cost of a continued war outweighted the loss of lives in a flash in order to stop the thing once and for all.
BTW, WW2 was more like 55 million war dead AFAIK.
-
The revisionist view of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki continue to be entrenched in each generation after the war.
A. "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."
B. "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
C. "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
D. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
E. "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."
F. "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 (the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands), Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped."
These quotes are not the revisionist version, they are the original version by these men:
A. Major General Curtis LeMay
B. Admiral William D. Leahy
C. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
D. General Dwight D. Eisenhower
E. General Henry (Hap) Arnold
F. U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
The revisionist version is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. You don't need it. Just accept that it was political and not militarily necessary.
The revisionism that 1 million US casualities were averted is the easiest to cast off. The entire proposed invasion force of mainland Japan was 550,000 men. How could they possibly suffer 1 million casualties?
The result of the Yalta conference was that Russia would enter the Pacific War 90 days after the end of the war in Europe. May 8 + 90 days = August 8th. After the first test was successful in July, a race with the calendar was on to deny Russia territory in Asia as had occured in post-war Europe. It really is that simple.
There is no dishonor in that truth. It does not change the fact that the decade of Japanese colonization was over at the cost millions of lives. It also does not change the fact that Japan is now the most steadfast and important ally of the United States.
I went to Hiroshima about 15 years ago with a group of O-6s and an admiral, all with Vietnam experience, and I will tell you this: it was a very sobering thing. All, to a man, were shaken by it and found it gruesome and disturbing.
Americans have never witnessed mass destruction of its cities or mass killing of its civilians. You have no concept of seeing hundreds of thousands of American civilians slaughtered like cattle. Some see images of people who don't look like them and say things like,"They don't value their lives like we do," a common thing said during WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
Well, old men, young men, women and children everywhere are just trying to live, like you. They are powerless in the politics that kills them or their families. You lose your humanity if you de-humanize them and accept revisionism of the 'necessity' of their deaths, and the unbearable pain the survivors endure.
-
Well, Rolex, none of those men were going to have to storm the beaches of Japan if they DIDN'T surrender. Nothing personal, but my Dad was a veteran of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and would have had to take part in the invasion of mainland Japan. My best friend's father was a veteran of about FIVE naval landings on islands occupied by Japan, and as a Marine, he too would have had to invade mainland Japan. Well, we're both pretty well satisfied that dropping those two bombs was a good thing. And my best friends mother was a native of Japan as well. So, I guess we're not too biased.
-
As a side note, Paul and the Enola crew mighta been singin 'Drop It Like It's Hot' if ole Snoop wuz around the hizzouse back then.
Anyways, there is sufficient enough evidence to support that more lives were saved in the long run than lost by dropping those two bombs. Japan certainly was still capable of waging a major war late July '45. Allbeit on defense in thier homeland. And they weren't importing too many weapons. So where were they built? huh?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, Rolex, none of those men were going to have to storm the beaches of Japan if they DIDN'T surrender. Nothing personal, but my Dad was a veteran of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and would have had to take part in the invasion of mainland Japan. My best friend's father was a veteran of about FIVE naval landings on islands occupied by Japan, and as a Marine, he too would have had to invade mainland Japan. Well, we're both pretty well satisfied that dropping those two bombs was a good thing. And my best friends mother was a native of Japan as well. So, I guess we're not too biased.
My grandfather wasn't necessarily a landing force, but was with the army national guard artillery units on several island hops. I'm definately glad they dropped both of them.
-
Rolex,
Those are nice quotes. Now I have a question. Are those quotes based on the information available in July 1945 or based on information well after hostilities ended, perhaps years after?
Second question how does the prediction of surrender of the Japanese mesh with the attempt by the military heirarchy to sever any communications by the Emperor as well as the bias against accepting unconditional surrender?
-
I suspect you may have the quotes right Rolex but you've been wrong before on your "facts". Can you link these with the purported quoter?
-
Hi Mav,
There are plenty of other quotes by the rest of the senior military and civilian leadership saying the same thing as these distinguished men. The only 5-star ranked officer holding the minority view was Marshall.
Since most had no knowledge of the existence of the program prior to Hiroshima, they were all made after that, of course.
As far as question two, I don't know how it meshes. The same conditions applied after surrender were the same conditions offered in surrender earlier. Gen MacArthur was adament that those surrender terms should have been accepted and he was occupation commander because of his knowledge and experience in Japan and of its culture.
I smell cynicism in your first line, Maverick. Is that the case? It's hard to read cynicism in just text. If so, I was vilified years before for posting many more quotations, so I'm not going to go through it again. I'm sure it will begin in earnest again and I'll be burned in effigy soon.
I am not interested in changing your mind. If your questions are framed to set me up to prove you are the winner, rather honestly discuss where the the truth is, I won't engage in it. If that is not the case, then I apologize. You can't blame me considering the history and culture of the O'Club...
I don't feel I should justify or qualify their statements, Mav. I am not a historian. I am just a guy who changed his mind in his forties from what he learned as a child in school. That was a hard thing to do and didn't happen easily or quickly.
Did the war end faster? Of course.
Was it a military necessity to kill 200,000 civilian in those two days? I don't think so.
Did it save more lives than it cost? I don't think that is true either.
Black Sheep said, "Anyways, there is sufficient enough evidence to support that more lives were saved in the long run than lost by dropping those two bombs."
What is that sufficient evidence? The only 'evidence' is a statement by Truman that a million US lives were saved by it, which he pulled out of his hat, at a time some press and Congress were questioning the decision soon after the event.
Was it more about Russia than Japan? I think so.
Well, let the hanging begin.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Was it more about Russia than Japan? I think so.
Well, let the hanging begin.
It was most likely a combination of things..
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm (http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm)
JAPAN SURRENDERS
(August 10-15, 1945)
Events: Dawn of the Atomic Era, 1945
Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.
From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.
The one possible exception to this was the personal status of the emperor himself. Although the Allies had long been publicly demanding "unconditional surrender," in private there had been some discussion of exempting the emperor from war trials and allowing him to remain as ceremonial head of state. In the end, at Potsdam, the Allies (right) went with both a "carrot and a stick," trying to encourage those in Tokyo who advocated peace with assurances that Japan eventually would be allowed to form its own government, while combining these assurances with vague warnings of "prompt and utter destruction" if Japan did not surrender immediately. No explicit mention was made of the emperor possibly remaining as ceremonial head of state. Japan publicly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and on July 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman gave the order to commence atomic attacks on Japan as soon as possible.
Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state.
Planning for the use of additional nuclear weapons continued even as these deliberations were ongoing. On August 10, Leslie Groves reported to the War Department that the next bomb, another plutonium weapon, would be "ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." Following the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only two targets remained from the original list: Kokura Arsenal and the city of Niigata.
to say the atomic bombs did not play a role in Japans surrendering is miss leading and wrong...
-
-
Rolex,
The quotes with neither context of time nor subject renders them rather suspect. My question was specific to the timing and dates of the quotes. It's quite easy, several years after the war with considerably more data from the enemy as to the actual condition of their thinking towards surrender or not, to make a statement that would have been foolish at best while still engaged in the conflict.
I ask again, and I do not want you to think I am sniping you, when were the quotes actually made? A link to the speech they were originally found in would be nice as well.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I lived in Okinawa for 6 years and visited "suicide cliffs" several times. It was there that over 2,000 civilians lept to their deaths to avoid being tortured by the monstrous Americans as they were assured they would by the Japanese military.
My grandfather fought on Okinawa after Guam. He supported the dropping of the bomb. I do too, even though he passed away in 1998, I never would have known him because he was to land in Yokohama Bay in November, 1945 had the Japanese not surrendered. Wait he was in China until January 1946 killing the Japanese that "had surrendered". They had no intentions of "surrendering". He went from 7th gunner (carrying extra ammo) to 1st gunner a couple of times in WWII.
I'm glad I was his Grandson for 25 years. If I can be 1% of the man he was, I'll be proud.
-
Suspect? Oh for heaven's sake. That is disappointing to read. I'm not going to be sucked into this quicksand.
Please just disregard it all. It's easier that way.
-
All I asked was for you to supply additional information to support your post. I did not make any accusation nor personal atacks. If you read more than that you inferred something that was not there.
I just wanted to read the text where those quotes came from and the time they were made.
-
Uhh Rolex: "Curtis LeMay defended their use, commenting: "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.""
-
Hi Mav,
I know you didn't attack me, but I don't think you're looking at this with curiosity. You're already looking to defend your beliefs, or can't you see that in your post?
Below is some reading material you will find them (and others) in:
Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change
William Leahy, I Was There
Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power
Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb
James Reston, Deadline
Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition
Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost
------
[added] LeMay was bragging, not supporting, because he was a sick man. He constantly bragged about killing more humans in less time than any other time in history as if it were a game. The object of bombing is to destroy military and industrial capability. The crews of the firebombing of Tokyo and Yokohama had to wear oxygen masks (altitude was below 1,000' AGL for most) because of the smell of burning flesh and red mist from the blood and smoke filling their aircraft. The civilians found an escape route to a river from the fires, but the pilots were ordered to cut them off with more incendiary bombs to entrap them in the incineration.
He also developed and pushed a plan to use the entire US nuclear arsenal in 1946 to strike every major Russian city in a surprise attack. The purpose was to beat his old record of killing people. He specifically said the plan was to reduce the Russian population as much as possible. Luckily, everyone in Washington knew he was nuts. You should know that also.
-
I wonder why it was necessary to invade Japan in the first place? Maybe it would have been enough to take a commitee near a desolate island and show the explosion and they would probably sign the peace treaty right away, but I don't think that would have been enough for the winning side.
Technically it was an interesting experiment of bomb effects on population and I guess some people were more interested in scientific aspects and they felt that they were on the verge of something big. Well they were right, in a way, as was seen during the cold war. The beginning of the atomic age WAS a big thing back then and some countries still fight off the effects of atomic hangover.
What about civilians, or more like people working in factories participating in war efforts, and by that definition they are nearly the same as military? The line is blurry today but maybe it was not back then when the enemy was dehumanized and they were to be defeated in any means available.
Maybe they (US) thought that according to Japanese mentality surrender was the same as death so the formal surrender was totally out of question and invasion would have indeed cost dearly to US. After all the surrendering option was more viable than the US would have probably though.
All in all a tragic event which was a result of excess use of force as we know now but how would they have known back then?
-C+
-
I think this demonstrates how "ready" the Japs were to surrender:
"Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3."
A TIE!!!! After being nuked TWICE and having the USSR as an active enemy, as well as both the USA and the UK exclusively.
The statistics I've seen are different. The estimated conquest of Japan was to cost some 1.5 million allied lives, and 4-5 million Japanese lives. It was built on the combat experiences at Iwo and Okinawa.
The only really bothering theory I've ever seen is the one Charge mentioned. That one:
"I wonder why it was necessary to invade Japan in the first place? Maybe it would have been enough to take a commitee near a desolate island and show the explosion and they would probably sign the peace treaty right away, but I don't think that would have been enough for the winning side. "
-
Angus, how do 1.5M casualties happen to a population of 0.55M?
-
I would like to see a source that the Allies planned to take Japan with a force of 550.000 men.
-
Here's the casualty calculus if it may help....
Estimated casualties for Downfall
Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion—afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile. [1] This is somewhat misleading, however, as it suggests that Purple Hearts being issued currently are those minted in the closing days of World War II. In actual fact, the design of the medal and it's corresponding service ribbon have been updated since the end of the Korean war, so the surplus ones represent an obsolete design that is no longer awarded.
It is important to remember that the casualty estimates are just that, and that they do not take into account the demoralizing effect the incessant air attacks had on the Japanese population. For example, in early August Fifth Air Force fighter pilots came back from low altitude missions over Kyushu to report that white flags were flying in towns and villages all over the island. Post-war interrogations revealed that almost 70% of the Japanese population had reached the point that they felt they were unable to endure one more day of war.
Linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Hi Mav,
I know you didn't attack me, but I don't think you're looking at this with curiosity. You're already looking to defend your beliefs, or can't you see that in your post?
You were/are obviously defending yours. Before Mav I asked for a source to your quotes. When one quotes another it's not unreasonable to ask for a source. If you don't want to get "sucked into this quicksand" then don't make such a strong point without backing it up.
-
The generals and admirals were making a point, not me. Here's some friendly advice you might want to put on a 3x5 card and think about, lukster:
If you disagree with someone, or would like to get some information from them, starting out with a smarmy dig about their credibility might not be the most effective technique.
----------
A demonstration shot of an atomic bomb was ruled out for the simple reason that it may not have worked properly and the precious fissile material lost or scattered.
And Angus, 550,000 men was the inital plan, with another 200,000 being transferred from Europe later. You can find it easily.
I think most of you misunderstand the purpose of quoting some of the leading military people of that time about their thoughts on using weapons of mass destruction. They came from an era of soldiers and sailors who were taught that war was between soldiers and sailors. Even General Marshall had reservations, saying that killing women and children was not what a Christian nation did. They likened it to chemical weapons they knew from WWI. They were aghast at the destruction and human toll after the effects became known. We should also.
To discount their words or say that they didn't care about the men under their command since they would not be on the beaches is disgraceful and slanderous. No one here that I know of compares to what those men were like and the responsibility they bore.
I said a few post up that I thought the bombs did shorten the war. I think reading about the uneasiness these great leaders of men had about it teaches us much about their character. None of them started their careers as generals or admirals, yet after all they had seen and been through, killing women and children was not something they rationalized as easily as people seem to do now. What does that tell us about us? They struggled with it.
Marshall was pushing for tactical use of the new weapons during the invasion and had already allocated a number to each location. The problem with that plan (not known at the time) was radiation effects. US troops would have suffered significant casualties from those effects as they advanced through the areas. The full measure of those effects was not know until quite some time after Hiroshoma and Nagasaki.
Was the imminent entry of Russia a factor to using it? I would say so. I don't think it was as much of a factor to Japan's surrender, though.
Was Japan near it's breaking point? I have no doubt of that.
Did the bombings affect the Emperor's emergence into clarity and decisiveness? I would say so. It's interesting to note that Adolf Hitler took the easy way out. The Emperor accepted surrender and the fate it would bring him, thinking it would cost him his life in a humiliating trial and execution. He addressed the nation and told them that he, and they, must bear the unbearable. Accept the surrender as he would.
That was pretty gutsy for a pampered and cloistered young man who had been manipulated during most of his reign.
From the moment the Emperor told the population that they must bear the unbearable, they did. They surrendered. Those who could not, or would not accept it committed suicide. Hundreds of cadets at the military academy jumped off a cliff. They didn't fight to the death.
You don't find reports of fanatical resistance or organized attacks on occupying soldiers by civilians with spears after the surrender. There were isolated cases and a few soldiers who didn't know the war was over, but that's about all.
Did the population have to bear the unbearable? Well, there was a taste of the unbearable. The entire occupation of Japan came to grinding halt after just 2 months. A complete stand down and restriction to bases for all US troops while every field commander in Japan under MacArthur was ordered to report to Tokyo. Not because of a Japanese insurrection, though.
Murder, rape and looting by US troops was so widespread, MacArthur had to take drastic measures to avert an insurrection from occuring because of it. You can look it up in the National Archives. It's de-classified now.
War makes animals of men. Men like MacArthur and Eisenhower and their peers who strove to maintain character and a sense of humanity after the war and concern for the welfare of civilians should be heralded. Their humanity should not be challenged by little men who belittle them for it, or those who flippantly say things today like,"Hey, stuff happens."
-
Considering Japan was arming all citizens to fight (albeit with sharpened stick)..... How many lives were actually saved by dropping the atomic bombs.
By some estimates as many as 10 million Japanese casualties, if the US had invaded the mainland. Probably most would be those civilians with the sticks.
Bronk, this is all based on what, your imagination?
No Ghost, you couldn't be more wrong or misguided,
Find the documentary called Hiroshima. It does a good job on both sides. In it, it shows actual footage of young girls and boys, they couldnt be older then 12 and looked as young as 8 or 9 that were being trained to fight with sharpened sticks.
Japan was a culture the didn't have a word for surrender. To land troops on that island would have made the whole war in the Pacific look like childs play. You ask the American mothers and fathers that had sons fighting in the Pacific if they thought it was worth it... I guess it is easy for you to sit there and pontificate on others lives without context.
Two of the prominent critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard,
who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written
letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to
play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped
atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic
bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
You talk as if we started WWII - go back to your history books, we just finished it.:aok
Was it a terrible thing, yes, was it better than killing Americans instead to stop a war we did not start - Absophucinglutely!
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The generals and admirals were making a point, not me. Here's some friendly advice you might want to put on a 3x5 card and think about, lukster:
If you disagree with someone, or would like to get some information from them, starting out with a smarmy dig about their credibility might not be the most effective technique.
You're credibilty took a hit so far as I'm concerned in a previous thread when you claimed or implied that the "students" who invaded the US embassy in Iran did so to force the US to release their money. Could have been an honest mistake, I'm not calling you a liar or anything, just asking for your source. Or do you have their statements memorized and posted that from your memory?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
If you disagree with someone, or would like to get some information from them, starting out with a smarmy dig about their credibility might not be the most effective technique.
How about this: When you put up purported facts or quotes, plunk the source link beside them. In several responses, you still have failed to do this. What your delicate sensibilities tell you about someone's demeanor is more suited to a couple of women carping at each others' hairdos:)
-
Operation Downfall was to take place in two parts: Operations Olympic and Coronet.
The figures cited of 550,000 American troops involved in the invasion are for the initial landing only.
Thirty six combat divisions in all would be involved. Operation Downfall called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, elements of the 7th Army Air Force, the 8th Air Force, the 10th Air Force, and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support or more than 40 percent of all servicement still in uniform in 1945 - would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults.
Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties from the entire operation would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.
While a naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill, and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.
A 3,000 ship fleet, under Admiral Raymond Spruance would carry the invasion troops. Aircraft from 66 aircraft carriers would bomb, rocket and straf enemy defenses, gun emplacements and troop concentrations along the beaches.
The preliminary invasion would begin October 27 when the series of small islands west and southwest of Kyushu.
If all went well with Olympic, Coronet would be launched March 1, 1946. Coronet would be twice the size of Olympic, with as many as 28 American divisions landing on Honshu.
Latter day critics of the decision to drop the atomic bomb often state that the Japanese were already finished and would have shortly surrendered, no longer having the strength or will to resist.
The following facts strongly refute that claim.
Captured japanese documents and post war interrogation of Japanese military leaders disclose that information concerning the number of Japanese planes available for the defense of the home islands was dangerously in error.
During the sea battle at Okinawa alone, Japanese kamikaze aircraft sank 32 Allied ships and damaged more than 400 others. But during the summer of 1945, American top brass concluded that the Japanese had spent their air force since American bombers and fighers daily flew unmolested over Japan.
What themilitary leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland.
Allied intelligence had established the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed that 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.
In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the japanese still had 5,651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12, 725 planes of all types. Newer and more effective models of the Okka were also being developed.
When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.
While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over Kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes were to hit the American transports.
As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to used in hour-by-hour attacks.
By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving hte defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.
Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuous firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikazes would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy - some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles - when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyushu.
Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from the sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.
If the invasion was not shattered at sea by these tactics, the landing would be opposed by elite division of the Japanese Army which, for the first time since 1942, would enjoy a 3 to 2 and even larger superiority in numbers.
Backed by an intricate system of defenses, including caves stocked with supplies, fuel, and ammunition, as well as pillboxes and trenches, the Japanese Army would have fought almost literally to the last man.
In addition, intelligence studies estimated that approximately 28 million civilians had received training in hand-to-hand combat and would have fought as irregulars and guerillas behind the lines to help contain a breakthrough.
In the early hours of the invasion, American casualties were estimated to run about 1000 an hour.
These facts hardly indicate that the Japanese were "finished."
-
<<<---- Not afraid of the Atom Bomb or Atomic Bomb---->>>
What im afraid of is a Thermo-Nuclear Bomb, It will kill anything in its path no matter what with the Heat that it puts off, Atleast people survived the Atomic Bombs, No one unless VERY VERY VERY well protected would withstand the Blast of a Thermo Nuclear Bomb which is used by almost all countrys that got nukies now.
1st Sign of a Nuke war and im going to bend over and kiss my arse good bye, If i have time before it hits me. :noid
-
Originally posted by lukster
You're credibilty took a hit so far as I'm concerned in a previous thread when you claimed or implied that the "students" who invaded the US embassy in Iran did so to force the US to release their money. Could have been an honest mistake, I'm not calling you a liar or anything, just asking for your source. Or do you have their statements memorized and posted that from your memory?
The US refused to return billions of dollars the shah had placed in US banks against future orders of military material after the new government cancelled the order after his removal. It was one of the demands, in addition to the return of the shah, the primary demand.
That is common knowledge to anyone having a even a rudimentary understanding of the US Embassy hostage situation. You can search to confirm it. Knock yourself out. It should take you only a few minutes and I am absolved of any accusations of leading you on.
Didn't you watch the news? It was the lead story every single night for 444 days.
Day 1 of the hostage crisis in Iran
Day 2 of the hostage crisis in Iran
Day 3 of the hostage site in Iran
...
You want me to find a link to prove the Earth revolves around the Sun, or are you okay with that one?
-
I'll be open with you Rolex. I've seen the quotes you posted before and I don't really doubt their legitimacy. I'm more interested in seeing where you pulled them from. I don't agree with your conclusions or the site from which I suspect you pulled those quotes.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Operation Downfall was to take place in two parts: Operations Olympic and Coronet.
The figures cited of 550,000 American troops involved in the invasion are for the initial landing only.
Now this will be the first response to the "Operation Downfall" theorists on the BBS.
Good post Shuckins, maybe folks will realize the depth and magnitude of the "planned Invasion of Japan".
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The US refused to return billions of dollars the shah had placed in US banks against future orders of military material after the new government cancelled the order after his removal. It was one of the demands, in addition to the return of the shah, the primary demand.
That is common knowledge to anyone having a even a rudimentary understanding of the US Embassy hostage situation. You can search to confirm it. Knock yourself out. It should take you only a few minutes and I am absolved of any accusations of leading you on.
You want me to find a link to prove the Earth revolves around the Sun, or are you okay with that one?
The money was not placed on hold until affter the embassy was invaded. I didn't dig up your old post yet but I got the distinct impression you were using this information to somehow justify this invasion. If you calim I'm wrong I'll dig it up and apologize if it's clear that was not your intent.
-
Naw, the freeze on Iranian assets was after the embassy takeover. $10 billion was not returned when the order was cancelled before the takeover. It is not justifying an invasion, it is understanding what the issues were. You can't negotiate anything without understanding what the other guy wants. Get it?
-
Ehm, Rolex:
"And Angus, 550,000 men was the inital plan, with another 200,000 being transferred from Europe later. You can find it easily."
Shuckins has given the data. I had this anyway:
"Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was to begin on "X-Day", which was scheduled for November 1, 1945. The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including forty-two aircraft carriers, twenty-four battleships, and four hundred destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen U.S. divisions were scheduled to take part in the initial landings."
And Coronet:
"Coronet
Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu at the Tokyo Plain south of the capital, was to begin on "Y-Day", which was scheduled for March 1, 1946. Coronet would have been the largest amphibious operation of all time, with 25 divisions (including the floating reserve) earmarked for the initial operations. U.S. First Army would have invaded at Kujukuri Beach, on the Boso Peninsula, while U.S. Eighth Army invaded at Hiratsuka, on Sagami Bay. Both armies would then drive north and inland, meeting at Tokyo."
You're talking big numbers here, and the data to build up an idea of the casualties comes from IWO (some 30.000 DEAD Japanese and USA) as well as Okinawa with lots more, - those are yet in size merely the start of the Japanese home islands.
About Okinawa:
"Many military historians believe that Okinawa led directly to American use of the atomic bomb, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A prominent holder of this view is Victor Davis Hanson, who states it explicitly in his book Ripples of Battle. The theory goes: because the Japanese on Okinawa, including native Okinawans, were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace, without American casualties. Ironically, the American conventional fire-bombing of major Japanese cities (which had been going on for months before Okinawa) was far more effective at killing civilians than the atomic bombs and, had the Americans simply continued, or expanded this, the Japanese would likely have surrendered anyway. Nevertheless, the bombs were a powerful symbolic display of American power, and the Japanese capitulated, obviating the need for an invasion of the home islands"
-
Masherbrun,
Thanks. My dad was a seabee whose unit was in Okinawa.
His unit was C.B.M.U. 633 and arrived at Okinawa aboard the transport ship USS Noble on August 13, 1945. They spent two days on board before disembarking.
During the night, before they disembarked, Japanese aircraft carried out raids on the ships anchored in Buckner Bay. One placed a torpedo into the ship 500 yards inboard of dad's transport, killing 20 offiders and men. That ship was the USS Pennsylvania.
The second night, a kamikaze smashed into the transport 500 yards outboard of his ship.
The next day, the war ended. Even at this late a date, the Japanese were still able to strike at American forces at this great a distance from Japan.
My dad's unit was scheduled to take part in the invasion of Japan...maybe not in the initial landings, but certainly in those that followed.
Every man in his unit breathed a collective sigh of relief when news came that the bomb had been dropped and the war had ended.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Masherbrun,
Thanks. My dad was a seabee whose unit was in Okinawa.
His unit was C.B.M.U. 633 and arrived at Okinawa aboard the transport ship USS Noble on August 13, 1945. They spent two days on board before disembarking.
During the night, before they disembarked, Japanese aircraft carried out raids on the ships anchored in Buckner Bay. One placed a torpedo into the ship 500 yards inboard of dad's transport, killing 20 offiders and men. That ship was the USS Pennsylvania.
The second night, a kamikaze smashed into the transport 500 yards outboard of his ship.
The next day, the war ended. Even at this late a date, the Japanese were still able to strike at American forces at this great a distance from Japan.
My dad's unit was scheduled to take part in the invasion of Japan...maybe not in the initial landings, but certainly in those that followed.
Every man in his unit breathed a collective sigh of relief when news came that the bomb had been dropped and the war had ended.
Regards, Shuckins
You are VERY WELCOME. My grandfather was USMC (43-46) and did NOT want to go into Yokohama Bay. He said this often, and this was someone that turned down a Purple Heart on Guam carrying his dead buddy ashore under fire.
The figures would have been catastrophic in proportion.
-
A wee more of Okinawa:
"Battle of Okinawa
Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.
The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. Thirty-four allied ships and craft of all types had been sunk, mostly by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged. The fleet had lost 763 aircraft. Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded. Navy casualties were tremendous, with a ratio of one killed for one wounded as compared to a one to five ratio for the Marine Corps. Combat stress also caused large numbers of psychiatric casualties, a terrible hemorrhage of front-line strength. There were more than 26,000 non-battle casualties. In the battle of Okinawa, the rate of combat losses due to battle stress, expressed as a percentage of those caused by combat wounds, was 48% [in the Korean War the overall rate was about 20-25%, and in the Yom Kippur War it was about 30%]. American losses at Okinawa were so heavy as to illicite Congressional calls for an investigation into the conduct of the military commanders. Not surprisingly, the cost of this battle, in terms of lives, time, and material, weighed heavily in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just six weeks later. "
From here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm
The Japanese side of casualties:
"Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; 10,755 captured or surrendered. The Japanese lost 7,830 aircraft and 16 combat ships. Since many Okinawan residents fled to caves where they subsequently were entombed the precise number of civilian casualties will probably never be known, but the lowest estimate is 42,000 killed. Somewhere between one-tenth and one-fourth of the civilian population perished, though by some estimates the battle of Okinawa killed almost a third of the civilian population. According to US Army records during the planning phase of the operation, the assumption was that Okinawa was home to about 300,000 civilians. At the conclusion of hostilities around 196,000 civilians remained. However, US Army figures for the 82 day campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army. "
That sums up with a lot doesn't it? Maybe wanna add up the figures?
Leyte Gulf:
"The US Army suffered over 15,500 casualties, the defending Japanese more than 49,000. The invasion of Luzon followed on 15 December 1944."
(Wikipedia)
That lead to the fall of Manila. There the Japs really went apecheese!!!
"The Manila massacre, February 1945, refers to the atrocities conducted against Filipino civilians in Manila, Philippines by retreating Japanese troops during World War II. Various credible Western and Eastern sources agree that the death toll was at least 100,000 people. The massacre was at its worst in the Battle of Manila."
It was one of the drops who filled the meter, and the meter was big, - Hiroshima gets dwarfed by it:
"The Manila Massacre is one of several major war crimes committed by the Imperial Japanese Army from the annexation of Manchuria in 1931 to the end of World War II in 1945. It was a major event in the Japanese war crimes, where over 15 million Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Indonesian, Burmese, Indochinese civilians, Pacific Islanders, and Allied POWs were killed."
The Manila massacre, February 1945, refers to the atrocities conducted against Filipino civilians in Manila, Philippines by retreating Japanese troops during World War II. Various credible Western and Eastern sources agree that the death toll was at least 100,000 people. The massacre was at its worst in the Battle of Manila.
-
Originally posted by Angus
A wee more of Okinawa
You are telling me and others figures we already know. My grandpa lived this. I heard stories every time I saw him. Anyone who thinks the A-Bomb "killed more than an Invasion of Japan" is full of it. Do me a favor, ask a Vet who WAS THERE, 100% will say it (The Bombs) saved more lives.
-
I once read an excellent book entitled "Typhoon of Steel: The Campaign for Okinawa." I can't remember the name of the author however.
Excellent battle history of that event, if anyone is interested enough to look it up.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Naw, the freeze on Iranian assets was after the embassy takeover. $10 billion was not returned when the order was cancelled before the takeover. It is not justifying an invasion, it is understanding what the issues were. You can't negotiate anything without understanding what the other guy wants. Get it?
Ok, I dug it up.
Here's what you said:
"When the shah was deposed, Iran cancelled future American weapons contracts. The shah deposited $10 billion just prior to the overthrow for future purchases and maintenance contracts. When the new government called in the US ambassador to cancel the future contracts and return the $10 billion, the US response was to seize the money and dare Iran to do something about it.
One of the main reasons the US embassy was seized was in response to that dare. The $10 billion was returned to Iran and the hostages were released, as promised, but the timing was set as a final tweaking of the nose at the US State Department."
Here's what wikipedia says and it matches my memory from the time:
Iranian students demanded that the U.S. government apologize for its interference in the internal affairs of Iran and for the overthrow of Prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. They also demanded that Iran's assets in the U.S. be released. The assets had been frozen by the U.S. government in response to the hostage taking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
Maybe you have information to indicate this is incorrect or that the $10B you are referring to wasn't part of these "assets" that were frozen after the emabssy was invaded? I'm all ears but I'm gonna need to see your source if you want me to be convinced.
-
and lets not forget the japanese had being using biological weapons in china, and tried to deploy them against the US. If the US landed in japan theres no question they would've deployed them and the death toll would've been much higher.
Funny how the japanese always forget about their own bio warfare on chinese civilians when they talking about the a-bombs.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You are telling me and others figures we already know. My grandpa lived this. I heard stories every time I saw him. Anyone who thinks the A-Bomb "killed more than an Invasion of Japan" is full of it. Do me a favor, ask a Vet who WAS THERE, 100% will say it (The Bombs) saved more lives.
You may have misunderstood my postings Masherbrum, for I roughly agree with you.
And as a sidenote, Chemical weapons were planned for the conquest of Japan. Quite practical in the cave business.
-
Originally posted by eagl
...and the crowd went wild!!!!!
Ya ..they went wild as the mushroom cloud blossomed
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Angus
You may have misunderstood my postings Masherbrum, for I roughly agree with you.
And as a sidenote, Chemical weapons were planned for the conquest of Japan. Quite practical in the cave business.
The one thing my grandpa could never "run from", were the screams of the Japanese in the caves as the phosphorus grenades went off. He took that to his grave and I am very sure had nightmares from it (among other things).
I just hope the world has learned from WWII and stray from it again. However, IMO, as long as two creatures inhabit the Earth, there will be conflict.
-
These quotes are not the revisionist version, they are the original version by these men:
A. Major General Curtis LeMay
B. Admiral William D. Leahy
C. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
D. General Dwight D. Eisenhower
E. General Henry (Hap) Arnold
F. U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
ROLEX
And, as I noted in the some 3000 words of rebuttal the last time this issue came up, each of these figures either had their ego at stake or they were making these statements at the height of the Cold War. I’ll just pull from that thread:
General Curtis LeMay - We won the war with my innovative and driven conventional bombing campaign, not some bomb.
President Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral William Leahy - cold war positions, in the face of MAD, on the morality of the nuclear genie. Leah in fact became quite the anti-nuclear activist after the war.
Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold - again, a plug to the Air Corps long running bombing campaigns as practiced in both theaters.
And three you left out this time:
General Douglas MacArthur - I WON THE WAR, who needed a bomb.
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey - We won the war with the pacific feet, not some bomb.
Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations, said that "the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials." (submission, of course, involving mass death through starvation)
You can substitute Nimitz for King, though his statement that “Japan had already sued for peace…” is entirely inaccurate. BTW, would the war really have been over in two weeks without the Russians or the Bomb? Same with the Strategic Bombing survey statement. Pretty optimistic (see later below).
There are plenty of other quotes by the rest of the senior military and civilian leadership saying the same thing as these distinguished men. The only 5-star ranked officer holding the minority view was Marshall.
You previously (in that other thread) listed a bunch of these. My reply there was:
…Your additional page of state department officials just serves to confirm that the decision to drop the atomic bombs was controversial. They state their opinions, with the generous use of “might,” “should,” “all probability,” “could have,” etc. Most of their opinions center on, “It would have been great if…” and in some cases contain a Western-thinking analysis of Japan’s dismal military situation that ignores the fact that the Japanese people did not really believe they were loosing the war, and that the militarist faction of the government (the dominate faction of the government since before the war) didn’t care. They believed that with added sacrifice Japan could ultimately win. If there was no militarist faction, and if the civilian faction and the Emperor were the only source of power (or even clearly the dominant source of power) then their arguments would carry more weight.
As to Marshall, the dissenter, he was also the only one, as Chief of Staff, who was had a big picture position on the issue without that “I won the war not the bomb,” bias (though that could admittedly bias his view as well).
A lot of people were cited who had their own agendas, just like the British battleship admirals with the "inhuman" submarine, the Air Corp and Navy with Billy Mitchell, the 8th AF with unescorted daylight bombardment, etc. Others were quoted at the height of the cold war when the nuclear genie prompted much retrospective thought. Frankly, there are several million men in uniform from that period of lower rank who would universally say that the atomic bomb was worth it if it meant they could live to return to civilian life. Not much of a philosophical issue there, when you’re the guy with the rifle in your hands.
The reality is the war had dragged on for 6 years and there was little patience left among the allies (leaders to people) for dragging it out for another year chatting and maybe having to invade anyway. During which times, the civilian deaths from starvation and disease would likely have dwarfed the bombings. Each month would have rapidly provided a death toll that would certainly rival the atomic bombings. Hardly a “better” alternative, to win the war whenever the civilian death toll from starvation reached a point (and I bet it would have been a high point at that) where the militaristic leadership decided to sue for peace.
Had this been carried to completion, would you now be criticizing the US for starving to death millions of Japanese civilians? It did almost happen (certainly was underway), and it might even have worked after the dead piled high enough. It’s telling that a town in Japan dedicated a monument to an American naval base commander who opened up the facility’s garbage dump to the public and saved many from starvation immediately post war. Saburo Saki talked of relatives who did not make it through those lean years.
-
(CONT)
Was the imminent entry of Russia a factor to using it? I would say so. I don't think it was as much of a factor to Japan's surrender, though.
Was Japan near it's breaking point? I have no doubt of that.
… Was it a military necessity to kill 200,000 civilian in those two days? I don't think so.
Did it save more lives than it cost? I don't think that is true either.
ROLEX
The first part of this I agree with. The Russian equation would have likely driven the invasion vs. starvation strategy since we would have had to ensure what was happening in Eastern Europe did not happen in Japan by grabbing as much territority as possible.
The second part, not so much. There were no serious peace feelers from those actually in a position to, well, surrender. The militarist still thought, and perhaps correctly, that they could stop the invasion on the beaches and generate a peace settlement short of unconditional surrender. Nor was there a groundswell of civilian resistance to the war. Quite the opposite. So, no leadership desire for peace, no civilian desire for peace (short of victory) -- where’s the peace going to come from? Even Hiroshima couldn’t generate much action where unconditional surrender was concerned:
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
The Emperor himself places the bomb as the major, specific reason for the surrender. He cannot even acknowledge the dismal state of Japan’s military in the initial paragraph below of his surrender declaration. Notice, he can’t even mention the word “Surrender” in his surrender proclamation. Now, it may have just been a facilitator to overcome the objections of the militarists and the general population to surrender, but even so it served its purpose:
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.
Notice, not only is Japan at risk, BUT ALL OF CIVILIZATION... that's what it took to sell the idea of surrender to the Japanese people. The fact remains that Japan did not undertake serious high-level, formal negotiations for peace until after the second atomic bombing.
Well, old men, young men, women and children everywhere are just trying to live, like you. They are powerless in the politics that kills them or their families. You lose your humanity if you de-humanize them and accept revisionism of the 'necessity' of their deaths, and the unbearable pain the survivors endure.
ROLEX
They were not powerless, at least not the adults. In fact, they were enthusiastic supporters of the war (in spirit and action, factories, homefront and front lines), especially when it was going well. And they had been from China onward. WW2 was not some Napoleonic era, limited “professional army” live off the land kind of war. Perhaps they should have considered their children more in the years leading up to 1945.
Frankly, I had a grandfather who served from Operation Torch to Okinawa manning a 5-inch gun on a communications ship off shore at every major invasion. He faced dive-bombers, U-boats and kamikazes. He didn’t start the war, he didn’t want the war, was away from his family for five years because of it and his death in an invasion of Japan would not have been, IMO and that of the rest of his family, worth any number of aggressors and those who actively supported them. Hard to exchange 1 million, or even 10,000 or 1000 of “your boys” fighting against an aggressor that attacked you for any number of enemies, civilian or military, if there is an alternative that saves your lives in the process. Had Truman decided to forgo the bombing and go with the invasion, he would have been grossly negligent and deserving of impeachment.
Charon
-
Yup. :aok
BTW, the last Japanese soldiers to surrender on IWO gave up in 1949.
The last one in general that I read of was guarding his territory for 28 years.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.
:aok
I doubt any of our enemies would've appreciated that sentiment more than the japanese. American bushido.
-
"Notice, he can’t even mention the word “Surrender” in his surrender proclamation."
Holy hell, that alone is a good reason to a-bomb anybody!
If we'd have a bomb we'd bomb anybody who couldn't pronounce "perkele" correctly and in every other sentence. :D
No, really Charon, well written but not very convincing. Interesting conclusions, although obviously biased and free of knowledge of Japanese culture. But with an a-bomb you really do not need to understand but your own aspirations. Incredibly useful tool. We could call it "the translator". :)
I still think the a-bomb was a mistake, but a mistake done because of strategically difficult situation and political pressure. After all "the bomb" was a clear sign to world and Russia of the power balance world was about to enter.
-C+
-
Let us recognize and acknowledge this day, August 9th, the day Nagasaki was bombed sixty one years ago.
RUSH
Manhattan Project
=============
Imagine a time when it all began
In the dying days of a war
A weapon that would settle the score
Whoever found it first would be sure to do their worst.
They always had before...
Imagine a man where it all began
A scientist pacing the floor
In each nation, always eager to explore
To build the best big stick
To turn the winning trick.
But this was something more...
The big bang took and shook the world
Shot down the rising sun
The end was begun and it hit everyone
When the chain reaction was done
The big shots tried to hold it back
Fools tried to wish it away
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say
Imagine a place where it all began
Gathered from across the land
To work in the secrecy of the desert sand
All of the brightest boys
To play with the biggest toys
More than they bargained for...
Imagine a man when it all began
The pilot of "Enola Gay"
Flying out of the shockwave on that August day
All the powers that be, and the course of history,
Would be changed forevermore...
-
Originally posted by Angus
The last one in general that I read of was guarding his territory for 28 years.
Yea, I remember. He made a movie with Lee Marvind didn`t he? :D
-
Hey Charge,
Why don't you spend some time to back up your statements. Or are they just emotional opinions based on Abomb = Bad. Give us some specifics. Enlighten my unresearched bias a bit... Footnotable stuff, etc.
Charon
-
BOOM!wtf!pwned!
-
Charon, I meant merely your emotional blabber about words which were used and which were not. You use his surrender speech to point out it was right to drop a bomb on civilians (who participated in war efforts). I'm not saying it was not the right choice on your part, but IMO it was a bad choice. You could have done it other ways and the result would have been the same. Read my earlier posts.
"The Emperor himself places the bomb as the major, specific reason for the surrender. He cannot even acknowledge the dismal state of Japan’s military in the initial paragraph below of his surrender declaration. Notice, he can’t even mention the word “Surrender” in his surrender proclamation."
PS. If you want to bash me on those other topics, do it there, not here.
-C+
-
Charge,
The point I was trying to make is really simple. Nor is it "my emotional" viewpoint but one that is fairly well established concerning the issues relative to actually surrendering when both the military (leaders and rank and file) and civilian population, by and large, are not particularly motivated to end a war in what could be considered a defeat (or at least an absolute defeat).
The lack of the term "surrender" reflects that basic emotional state of mind where surrender had never been an option. Propaganda had refused to note Japanese setbacks, though obviously (and it's part of the record) intellectuals in the government, civilian population and military could clearly see through much of the propaganda, particularly when they had access to information that was not readily available to the general population. Still, the "need"to surrender was so ill established in the minds of the Japanese people that there was actually some confusion among some in the population over whether Japan had lost or actually won the war after hearing the speech.
But of course, that was not the major point of the materials quoted -- just an observation. You tend to ignore either willfully or, well, maybe you just missed the big bolded part somehow:
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.
Again, not really my observations that the Emperor used the bomb to sell the end of the war to the Japanese people, but one that was already pretty well established in the 20 years before I was even born. That's kinda why I try to base my opinions on things I have any real interest in on primary or carefully selected (for some degree of neutrality) secondary sources, vs. just pulling them out of my ass. Now, I may very well be wrong by using insufficient data, but your unsubstantiated opinions do nothing to change that.
I would have no problem admitting that the bombing was unnecessary if I actually though it was. There are plenty of actions that I would admit fall in that category (such as the bombing of Dresden) and I am open to hearing viewpoints, for example, on the need to invade the Philippines. MacArthur pushed it over King and Nimitz, who wanted to bypass as they had other Japanese conquests.
As to your previous “points.”
I wonder why it was necessary to invade Japan in the first place? Maybe it would have been enough to take a commitee near a desolate island and show the explosion and they would probably sign the peace treaty right away, but I don't think that would have been enough for the winning side.
Well, you just used up one of a handful of weapons that could have been used on enemy targets if they decided not to surrender. Or, the bomb might not have worked. Or, you let the Japanese know you have such a weapon so that they make a heightened effort to stop any B-29 incursion into the airspace. Would some desolate Island have truly shown the power of the bomb? Look at Los Alamos. A big flash and effect on detonation, but not much to see after the fact in an otherwise desolate environment. Also, which scientists would observe? How long to set up the event? Would the Japanese send the appropriate individuals? Would any of the senior politicians or military leaders (who could make such a decision) witness the detonation? “Hey Hirohito, why don’t you and Tojo come out to our special island -- we have something we want to show you…” This is discussed frequently in debates over the bomb. The arguments supporting this have always seemed weak, and full of wishful thinking. What primary or secondary source evidence do you have access to support that this would have likely resulted in surrender relative to the japanese mindset at the time?
Technically it was an interesting experiment of bomb effects on population and I guess some people were more interested in scientific aspects and they felt that they were on the verge of something big. Well they were right, in a way, as was seen during the cold war. The beginning of the atomic age WAS a big thing back then and some countries still fight off the effects of atomic hangover.
You seem to lose track that there had been an ongoing “interesting experiment” in World War that had dragged on for over 6 years and claimed roughly 30 million lives. To use my personal example, the first time my grandfather met my mother, she was 5 years old already. Had there been an invasion he may never have met her. Maybe it was just a big experiment, or maybe they just wanted to end the dammed war.
What about civilians, or more like people working in factories participating in war efforts, and by that definition they are nearly the same as military? The line is blurry today but maybe it was not back then when the enemy was dehumanized and they were to be defeated in any means available.
I don’t have the time or interest to go into the manner in which warfare changed (in terms of the population’s involvement in military conflict) in the transition to the industrial age. Compare and contrast the pre-Napoleonic era, the Napoleonic initial transitions and then the US Civil war. Look at Sherman’s March to the Sea. Consider how much that linkage of production and manpower had advanced by WW1 and WW2.
Maybe they (US) thought that according to Japanese mentality surrender was the same as death so the formal surrender was totally out of question and invasion would have indeed cost dearly to US. After all the surrendering option was more viable than the US would have probably thought.
All in all a tragic event which was a result of excess use of force as we know now but how would they have known back then?
What do you base this emotional opinion on, specifically and in some detail with appropriate sources?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Charge,
What do you base this emotional opinion on, specifically and in some detail with appropriate sources?
Charon
That's easy, Finnish Fairy tales, er I mean history books! :D
Very good post Charon, I was wondering about the ego angle myself. Some of those men had HUGE egos. MacA being one of the biggest.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your quote did not answer the question of Mini D...
100,000 killed in Tokyo... conventionally....
100,000 killed in Hiroshima... atomically....
which is worse?
The latter...
The effects of an atomic bomb last far longer.
Its called radiation.
-
I dunno Nilsen. The ones that died in the firebombing are still just as dead as the ones that died in Horoshima. Or are you saying dying by atomic bombing makes a person deader than conventional means?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.
heh. That's about it. You just summed up 4 years of undergraduate education for me lol.
-Sik
-
Mav,
I suspect that many tens of thousands of Japanese died for decades after Japan surrendered as a result of the long term effects of radiation exposure. Atom bombs are truly nasty weapons as a result of the radiation poisoning. Of course, they are truly wonderful weapons as far as flash bang goes.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I dunno Nilsen. The ones that died in the firebombing are still just as dead as the ones that died in Horoshima. Or are you saying dying by atomic bombing makes a person deader than conventional means?
Im talking about all those suffering from the effects even today, but you knew that.
-
Yeag,
I don't dispute that some died of radiation poisoning, but far less than if it had been a ground burst. Still comparing numbers of firebombing dead to numbers dead of the atomic bomb, I think it's about a wash between Tokya and Hiroshima on totals, particularly since both cities are still in the same place that they were during the war. In other words neither Nagasaki or Hiroshima were relocated to negate any fallout issues.