Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[SAYIT]

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, the Japanese they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.

At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.

I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.

Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.

No, they didn't think they could defeat America. They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty. Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.

No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.

What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military...

You just fabricated that to support your bogus conclusions. There is no evidence that the Japanese were anything but enthusiastic supporters of war.

You are not informed.

Read accounts from POWs imprisoned on the mainland, which clearly prove the population was staving and demoralized.

I am well enough informed to know the Japanese may not have been happy with the outcome of their war but they certainly supported it and you still have provided nothing in support of your bogus claim that they "were enslaved by their government and military."

 

[Camp]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

 

[regent]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

 

[gipper]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

By July 1945, Japan had lost nearly all their possessions throughout the Pacific. Their military was nearly destroyed. Their people were starving. The US air forces had destroyed nearly every major throughout Japan. They had little naval and air forces left. The US had complete control of the air and sea. B-29s flew numerous missions completely uncontested, with many not even incurring anti-aircraft fire.

The US military estimated 46k American dead, should a full scale invasion had occurred. Yet Truman lied claiming 500k would have died.
See Barton J. Bernstein, "A Post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 42, no. 6 (June–July 1986): 38–40; and idem, "Wrong Numbers," The Independent Monthly (July 1995): 41–44.

Answer this one simple question:
Why did Truman refuse to accept Japan's one condition for surrender, only to later accept that condition after the A-bombings?

Here is the truth...
Still, Truman’s multiple deceptions and self-deceptions are understandable, considering the horror he unleashed. It is equally understandable that the U.S. occupation authorities censored reports from the shattered cities and did not permit films and photographs of the thousands of corpses and the frightfully mutilated survivors to reach the public.95 Otherwise, Americans – and the rest of the world – might have drawn disturbing comparisons to scenes then coming to light from the Nazi concentration camps.

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.96 The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.97

The political elite implicated in the atomic bombings feared a backlash that would aid and abet the rebirth of horrid prewar "isolationism." Apologias were rushed into print, lest public disgust at the sickening war crime result in erosion of enthusiasm for the globalist project.98 No need to worry. A sea-change had taken place in the attitudes of the American people. Then and ever after, all surveys have shown that the great majority supported Truman, believing that the bombs were required to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, or more likely, not really caring one way or the other.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico -- Antiwar.com

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

 

[gipper]

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head. The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.

 

[Syriusly]

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..

I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.

 

[Syriusly]

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head. The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.

I am curious about this claim- I would appreciate links to the source so I can review myself.

 

[gipper]

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head. The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.

I am curious about this claim- I would appreciate links to the source so I can review myself.

I linked the source above, but here it is again. It is far from the only source.
See Barton J. Bernstein, "A Post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 42, no. 6 (June–July 1986): 38–40; and idem, "Wrong Numbers," The Independent Monthly (July 1995): 41–44.

 

[gipper]

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..

I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.

So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral. Is that your position?

Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:

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.109

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.

 

[SAYIT]

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...

3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

• In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
• In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 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 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General 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 June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of 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 the Battle of 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 kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been 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 a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those 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."

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..

I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.

So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral. Is that your position?.

I was responding to your claim:
Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties ....., in an effort to justify the immoral act..

You claimed that Truman was attempting to justify an 'immoral act'- my point is that I do not believe that Truman thought it was an immoral act- and therefore had no reason to justify it.

 

[Camp]

The government felt so sure about the casualties that would be suffered with the invasion that they produced a half a million Purple Hearts in preparation. The Purple Hearts being awarded to this very day were originally produced and meant for casualties of the Japanese invasion. Other things produced for the invasion have long since been disposed of, but those medals remain. All the men and women who have been killed and wounded in all the wars and actions since WWII have received medals meant for the invasion of Japan. 80 years of American combat, whether wars, police actions or whatever action was ordered by the President and congress do not equal the number of casualties expected during the invasion of Japan.

historynewsnetwork.org/article/1801

 

[elektra]

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head. The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.

 

[regent]

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..

I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.

So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral. Is that your position?

Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:

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.109

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.

 

[regent]

If the Germans had enough A bombs and began dropping them on cities perhaps we would have surrendered to Germany, or at least Germany might have made a negotiated peace with the allies. Who knows how that new war would have turned out. But it's a new component for the board-game,

 

[elektra]

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.

Most illogical.

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded. Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head. The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.

You are literally, ignorant.

The U.S. Military projected 46k deaths? If you knew what you were talking about you would say who, there were many plans and studies, like the Strategic Bombing Survey.

That the gimpper does not know what information is available shows the pure ignorance of, "gipper".

Seriously, you have zero idea of what to even plug into your Google search bar.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings? A flat out fabrication on your part. The Emperor never once sought a surrender prior to Nagasaki. Try reading a book, like The Rising Sun or Hirohito.

The Palace literally needed to REVOLT, literally REVOLTED, in order to SURRENDER!

Gipper, in all honesty, you have really lost out on the best history of WW II, it is an incredible story, of the Emperor trying to Surrender after Nagasaki, The Emperor literally risked his life, risked murder by his own people, the people within the Japanese high command literally attempted to stop the Surrender after Nagasaki was bombed.

Surrender to Russia, not hardly, not at all, they had a neutrality pack they tried to extend. The Emperor never attempted to Surrender through Russia. Not once, never asked nor indicated this was desired.

How about Sweden, did the Giant Heads get to Sweden and Dulles, a bit more of a story there, but not of "JAPAN" seeking surrender. Who sought Surrender in Japan is the question, because it was literally impossible for the Emperor, on his own, to seek Surrender. The Emperor never ever did anything against the military leaders of Japan, it simply unthinkable to speak against the military, they made the decisions regarding war, period. It was the Military's duty to protect Japan, even against the Emperor. Plenty of quotes from the Japanese Military leaders after the war to verify this fact.

I guess you have no understanding of the meaning of Samurai and how that dictated tradition in Japan. Which is critical because its the basis for how the Japanese came to Surrender.

Those who state "Japan" sought surrender never read a bit of the relevant history.

Its a great story, one of the best, and all you who have not read about it really have missed out on the most interesting facts of WWII.

It is your loss.

 

[elektra]

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Yeah, now you just went into crazy town... The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.

ha, ha, all your posts are a joke, now, before at least you used Google to get an answer from some one else, now that you are stating what you think, you are a blithering idiot.

No, the only reason the Indy was such a disaster was the Indianapolis got sunk!

A bit of Human Error in communications and such kept her lost for 4 days. Secret or no Secret, the Indianapolis was scheduled to arrive at port, what happened is all well documented.

There is even a book, which I am sure you can Google/Link/Partially-Quote, then you can flame and deride me for using the actual book you quote and reference with Google, for that is how joeb131 reacts when facts are counter to joeb131's "ideas".

 

[elektra]

Now you have resorted to, flat out lies.

No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.

I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!

At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.

Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say.

We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did. Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito! Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.

Since Japan committed very few acts of war, late in the war, Truman was right to incinerate thousands of defenseless civilians with massive aerial bombings and the use of the A bombs.

Is that your point?

My point, is simple, I point out how "gipper's" post is that of the ignorant.

Few acts of war? What are you, an idiot? Japan was at WAR! Not committing, "a few acts of war". A huge difference, being at war and committing a few acts of war.

Defenseless civilians? Zero Bomb Shelters? No Air-Raid sirens. No Flak cannons? No Army?

We do know that every single island conquered came with the horrific lost of life, the Japanese literally fought to the death, had extreme fortifications, and you contend that the Japanese homeland was defenseless?

It is a well documented fact, the defenses of Japan's mainland, and you contend they were defenseless?

You have zero knowledge of World War II, you do have knowledge of the misconceptions, the lies, the distorted crap put out by the likes of Howard Zinn and Chomsky. Most likely you have zero idea that your posts originate from Zinn.

Puts you and everyone else at an extreme disadvantage, to not know where your information comes from.

 

[gipper]

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade. Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Do you have any answer to this question?

Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.

I never said that. I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...

3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

• In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
• In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 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 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General 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 June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of 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 the Battle of 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 kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been 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 a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those 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."

Iwo ended in March. A bombs dropped in August...not three months.
The 46k combat deaths is the estimate the US military projected. It amazes me you guys do not know this, yet you think I am wrong.