Japanese debate on Nuclear Bombings

[MiloMorai]

Projections and conjecture that usually had a range of numbers, depending on the methodology. Most estimates were substantially less. Obviously, the "million+" numbers weren't used or people would had to have been casualties twice, since the total force was less than such a casualty estimate.

I didn't know the population of Japan was less than a million people?

The 'million' was total casualties , Allied and Japanese, soldier and civilian, afaik.

[Rolex]

Hi, MiloMorai. I think you'll be surprised to learn that people here think that was the US projected casualties. That is my point about myths.

I understand the American mindset very well, Angus. Probably more than you. How much do you know about the Japanese mindset?

My position is that there are many myths propagated by people who only know the version they read in high school history texts. The version that Japan woke up one day and decided to attack Pearl Harbor, then massacred a billion people in a quest to dominate the world. Allied troops treated all prisoners humanely and the Japanese people would have fought to the death of every man, woman and child with spears because they are a Godless, fierce race who don't value their lives like us. Then American troops gave away chocolates and chewing gum to Japanese children after the war.

The equivalent Japanese version is that a small group of peaceful fishermen were suddenly attacked while near Hawaii, and the heathen Americans proceeded, without provocation, to murder millions of innocent Japanese peace keepers and friendly policemen stationed at island resorts, then later, for no apparent reason, dropped atomic bombs killing a billion Japanese who were were drinking tea one morning.

Somewhere in the middle is the truth. To find it, you have to take both sides, just like preparing for a negotiation. If you're interested in comparing propaganda and myths, I'm not the guy for you. If you're interested in discussing something dispassionately to find something closer to the truth, I'd be willing to do that.

Some of you seem to think I am defending the Japanese view of the war. That is not the case. I am presenting the views they had, or have, not defending them. Many seem to have forgotten that the war is over. It was over 2 generations ago, but you act like you're still fighting it.

If you want to debate something, fine. You take the Japanese side and post, in your own words, the events that led to war. I'll take the Allied side. I've tried this before, but no one was willing to do it. I'm sure you'll disappoint me again. If you're not willing to do that, then you aren't looking for a discussion, you're just pounding out the same old myths without any intellectual curiosity.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Closest nation to do it?   I'd have to go with Armenia.  

Armenians were simply genocided in 1915, they had no option other then fight all be all killed by Osmans. Just like Russians in 1941.

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I don't recall the American's, British, or German's performing vivisections Rolex.

Did you see that nazi documentary with a man still walking with all his skin taken off by German "doctors"?...

Try to find a copy of "Ordinary fascism". http://imdb.com/title/tt0059529/

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Around 60 million + and counting from 1917-1989.    

"A last move is always made with a chessboard", eh?

Over 100 millions victims of "democratisation" and "civilisation" in XX century only. Not counting funny things of the past like Opuim wars, genocide in India and Africa, slavery, etc. Now another million already killed in peace-keeping liberation since 2003 and the number still grows.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, chill it a little and ponder on my what-if's. I will enjoy discussing them with you, and on a relatively () civil level too.

OK, let's go.

USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance. Most of the material "aid" (paid in gold) came after it wasn't that necessary, after industry was relocated and started production. Japanese attack in Far East could probably lead to a defeat of USSR in a matter of months. Peace with UK and Royal Navy joining nazi efforts could also turn the scales...

My "what if" is Japan planning Pearl-Harbor attack one week later, Japanese leadership looking at Soviet counter-offensive near Moscow that started on Dec 6th and canceling Nagumo's task-force attack. They planned Pearl-Harbor only because they thought USSR was already defeated and they can easily take Far East with Kwantun Army. I see Japanese switching Northwards, in this case USSR could have a really hard time...

Originally posted by Angus
Drink cheap beer while at it.
Sadly, in my place, tea is very much cheaper.

Sorry I am on tea now. Drinking that artificial Lipton crap because it's the only liquid other then local Caucasian mineral water that I can withstand.

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Rolex
No more or less than those brutal American or British bastards would let any Japanese foot touch American or British soil without a scrap.

I know this will be beyond your ability to grasp, but soldiers fight for their country. They don't have any choice, on either side. History books proclaim that their own engage is a "heroic" struggle and the enemy in a "fanatical" struggle. Soldiers who resist to the death are given medals, the enemy who does is "fanatical."

Speaking of naive. This is myth #1 and it goes like this: Japan would fight to the death of every man woman and child. The proof that it is a myth is that they didn't. What nation has ever done that?

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

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

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

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


The Japanese way of bayonet practice;


The British way;

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Rolex

History books proclaim that their own engage is a "heroic" struggle and the enemy in a "fanatical" struggle. Soldiers who resist to the death are given medals, the enemy who does is "fanatical."

 

So by your Doctrine;

You would contest as historic book that claimed "Hitler to be fanatical And that the allies fought on to achieve a heroic victory"

You would call that incorrect or biased would you?

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
a lot of?
A soldier is a soldier, what are you trying to tell me, soldiers are
civillians?
So only brutal Japanese bastards died in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
sorry, but all i see are just civillians died that days.
If this Tactic would be still used today, imagine how the world would
look like. Why sacrifice 3000+ soldiers in Iraq when you can destroy
a whole city (or two)  in minutes there.

But I doubt you know what it means today, or in 10 years or in 20...

Saying that a soldier is a soldier is just dumb bellybutton bluntness on your part. Being a soldier is a form of occupation like anyitng else, you are not born a soldier, we do not live in sparta boy'o.

You think that the millions of men Who served in the British and American Armed forces in the years 1939-1945 just sprung up under a toadstool in an enchanted forest or came down from cloud-nine? No they spanned from a small proportion of professional soldiers to refuse collectors, lawyers, farmers, secondary school boys. Are you trying to tell me that these men were not scared and had some sort of terminator approach to the war?

You seem to forget the Japanese started this war with a sly attack, and yet you feel compelled to contest the methods of their defeat, these were evil people, just as evil as the Nazi's and the Italians, and any other Nazi sympathiser, they all deserved the most painful death of all. whether it be a small piece of metal to the head, an explosion from a grenade, shrapnel to the chest, or incenerated/burnt alive by the A-bomb. I think it's a shame Hitler didn't get to see what should have been inflicted on him aswell.

If the germans had taken the same approach as japan, and there was less of a need to get to berlin, i'm sure they would have bean dealth the same hand as that of Hiroshima and nagasaki.



And You are also a screw loose if you think Iraq is a viable comparison to the desparate needs of WW2.

Iraq is not a war but more of peace keeping operation, why would the be a need to use an atomic weapon, the citizens of iraq who actually wanted to get rid of saddam i might add, pose a microscopic threat compared to that  of the entire population of the japanese empire, all with the intent to Defend Japan or die trying.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Boroda
OK, let's go.

USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance. Most of the material "aid" (paid in gold) came after it wasn't that necessary, after industry was relocated and started production.

Not true for a May 1945 end of the war.

True but knowing what was coming allowed the Soviets to redirect resources to what was urgently required.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built.

US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.

[Angus]

Short one here Boroda:
"USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance"

My go on this is that without the Brits on "your" side in 1941 as well as 1940, the Germans alone would have bent the USSR. They came fairly close anyway.
In a continuing war with the Brits and USA as neutral to the Nazis USSR would have been bent, even without the Japanese.

USSR vs. total Axis from 1940 onwards = roast and toast.

[Gh0stFT]

Laurie,
reading what you post here, all i can say is, still nothing changed.
Looks like you are into pictures, why dont post some Hiroshima
before & afterwards pics, i'm sure people would be interested to see it.
With all the knowledge we have today, pointing to other Nations
and even talk today about others should suffer the same fate as Hiroshima its beyound me.

I'm sure you will allways find an exuse, no matter what war or weapon used.

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

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Angus
Short one here Boroda:
"USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance"

My go on this is that without the Brits on "your" side in 1941 as well as 1940, the Germans alone would have bent the USSR. They came fairly close anyway.
In a continuing war with the Brits and USA as neutral to the Nazis USSR would have been bent, even without the Japanese.

Brits didn't distract any significant forces in 1941-42. Even fearfull Rommel's Afrika Corps could simply disappear in the Eastern Front, two-three divisions more didn't make it any worse.

They came close to taking Moscow, but so what? Napoleon did it in 1812, Poles did it in 1611, did it help them? With industry rebuilding at Urals it was only a matter of time to kick them out. Yes, there could me much-much more blood, but not total extinction as in case they win.

Originally posted by Angus
USSR vs. total Axis from 1940 onwards = roast and toast.

Barbarossa was planned in late-1940. Japanese were watching at least until Dec 1941, if they refused from attacking the US they needed several months to build up forces against USSR. IMHO in case they attack - about 20% probability of surviving and returning to pre-war borders, but it may be too optimistic.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Boroda
Brits didn't distract any significant forces in 1941-42.  

At least they were fighting on the correct side in Sept 1939...

[Angus]

Originally posted by Boroda
Brits didn't distract any significant forces in 1941-42. Even fearfull Rommel's Afrika Corps could simply disappear in the Eastern Front, two-three divisions more didn't make it any worse.

They came close to taking Moscow, but so what? Napoleon did it in 1812, Poles did it in 1611, did it help them? With industry rebuilding at Urals it was only a matter of time to kick them out. Yes, there could me much-much more blood, but not total extinction as in case they win.

 

Barbarossa was planned in late-1940. Japanese were watching at least until Dec 1941, if they refused from attacking the US they needed several months to build up forces against USSR. IMHO in case they attack - about 20% probability of surviving and returning to pre-war borders, but it may be too optimistic.

Hehe, rubbish.

With the Brits out of the game from the summer of 1940, what can Axis add to operation Barbarossa, - even WITHOUT the japanese, - which however and unavoidably, but not unwillingly, would be drawn in...:

1: Axis naval power into the Black Sea. No British Plug in the way.
That means also that Germany as well as Italy would have had their battlewagons free to go as well as not resting on the bottom of the sea.
The biggest factor might however have been a sea-link for supplies and troops to make a proper front from the black sea. USSR had no naval power to counter this.
2: Roughly twice the airpower. (Bear in mind that the Axis lost more aircraft to the Western powers in some 4 months of 1940 than to the USSR in the entire year of 1944.) Please say that double a Luftwaffe would have meant nothing...
3: Much much more troops, since there would be no need to keep a strong line towards the British. You are not just adding the Africa corps, - you are adding everything lost until Barbarossa. There would have been no Greek campaign, no Crete, no sentry from down in Norway to the Mediterranian.
In short, very much more of troops, backup and transport.
4: Much more economical backup, since there would be no more RN to stand in the way to deal with i.e. the USA. Bear in mind that the lend-lease pact between the USA and UK only passed by a margin (and without FDR it might not have passed), and at the same time Germany had open business with the USA, - just no transport. So, - USSR might also have faced materials from uncle Sam.

I think, Boroda, that you have your eyes and nose too much on just the land war in the USSR. As big as it was indeed, the USSR came close to buckling, and not only once. Moscow was close, Stalingrad was close, and even Kursk could have meant a turnaround.
Anyway, I stick to my opinion, that if the British had made peace with the Axis in 1940, the Axis would have had USSR for breakfast.

Prost.

[GRUNHERZ]

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

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

Still for Boroda's sake - I just gotta say Father Stalin saved us all!!!