Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[gipper]

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.

Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.

 

[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."

Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.

Okay- so you are offering your opinion that Truman believed the same thing, but chose to lie to Americans- most of whom had no problem with Japanese being incinerated by a bomb at that point if they thought it would save one American GI life.

 

[gipper]

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.

Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.

Okay- so you are offering your opinion that Truman believed the same thing, but chose to lie to Americans- most of whom had no problem with Japanese being incinerated by a bomb at that point if they thought it would save one American GI life.

If our gov told the truth and showed pics of the damage and victims, Americans would have been apalled.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I ignore it because it was completely irrelevent to the point. Yes, they could sink the odd ship. But we had plenty of ships to spare and they didn't. Of Japan's 12 battleships, 11 were sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of her 20 or so aircraft carriers, almost all of them had been sunk, including all six that had attacked Pearl Harbor.

And the USSR entering the war had a lot more to do with their decision to surrender than dropping a-bombs did.

 

[elektra]

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.

I ignore it because it was completely irrelevent to the point. Yes, they could sink the odd ship. But we had plenty of ships to spare and they didn't. Of Japan's 12 battleships, 11 were sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of her 20 or so aircraft carriers, almost all of them had been sunk, including all six that had attacked Pearl Harbor.

And the USSR entering the war had a lot more to do with their decision to surrender than dropping a-bombs did.

We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!

You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!

On the wrongs side of the war, you are.

 

[JoeB131]

We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!

You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!

On the wrongs side of the war, you are.

That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.

We could have had peace with Japan in 1944. We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.

 

[elektra]

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.

The "U.S. military", never undertook what you contend. There were specific estimates, by specific individuals, groups, teams, by the Navy, the Army, by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, even the strategic bombing study.

There never was a study, by the "military". What was its name, "The Military Estimate of Casualties".

You are vague and broad because you have never ever read about what you speak, other than a Google search on the specific propaganda you believe.

 

[elektra]

We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!

You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!

On the wrongs side of the war, you are.

That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.

We could have had peace with Japan in 1944. We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.

We could not of had peace in 1944.

The Emperor never sought peace.

The Military never sought peace.

If you honestly believe that we had a chance in 1944, show us how. Who, when, and where?

Best place to actually base this on history is to search Dulles, Sweden, Japanese Surrender.

Do you actually know the story of the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki? It is a great story, you can actually read that story without upsetting your other "ideas" of what happened in WW II.

A chance for peace in 1944?

 

[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.

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.

Is that the Gipper tied up in those quotes? I think it was the Gipper who stated the Japanese were DEFENSELESS.

But speaking of facts I thought I would add to yours;

Preparations for Invasion of Japan World War II Database

Because Japanese geography did not provide many invasion beaches, the Japanese organized a strong defense, particularly at Kyushu. Over 10,000 aircraft of various types and sizes were prepared as kamikaze aircraft. Underground networks of bunkers and caves stored food, water, and thousands of tons of ammunition. 2,350,000 regular soldiers and 250,000 garrison troops were deployed, 900,000 of which were stationed in Kyushu by Aug 1945. 32,000,000 militia, in other words all males between the age of 15 and 60 and all females between 17 and 45, were given the task to supplement the regular military; their weapons include everything from antique bronze cannons to Arisaka rifles, from bamboo spears to Model 99 light machine guns. Perhaps the eeriest fact was that after the war the United States discovered even children were trained to become suicide bombers when necessarily, strapping explosives around their torsos and rolling under the treads of American tanks. "This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate", said Dan van der Vat, "a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting". Although there was a strong dovish movement in Tokyo to end the war by seeking a conditional surrender, Ketsu-Go (Operation "Decision") continued to move forth, aiming to cause as much casualty as possible in order to sway American popular opinion. If they could cause more casualties than what the American people could accept, they thought, Japan might have a chance at negotiating for an armistice.

 

[elektra]

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?

Because the Aliens from Mars made it a condition of giving us the bomb, it was the Martians that did not like the Japanese, not Truman.

Japan never offered to surrender, hence you offer a literal, "False Premise".

When, who, and where was this surrender offered? It did not come from the Emperor or the Military Command?

There are at least two things you could possibly mistake for an attempt at surrender, but actually not, just one, the first would be Dulles/Sweden. That was while Roosevelt was alive. The second would be again not involving the Emperor, a feeler to Russia.

No offer ever given to the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our Ambassador, etc..

 

[gipper]

We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!

You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!

On the wrongs side of the war, you are.

That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.

We could have had peace with Japan in 1944. We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.

If by "we" you mean Truman and his inner circle, okay.
If the American people knew Japan offered to surrender, they would have demanded it be accepted.

 

[SAYIT]

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."

Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.

That's it? You claim some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).

 

[SAYIT]

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.

I ignore it because it was completely irrelevent to the point. Yes, they could sink the odd ship. But we had plenty of ships to spare and they didn't. Of Japan's 12 battleships, 11 were sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of her 20 or so aircraft carriers, almost all of them had been sunk, including all six that had attacked Pearl Harbor.

And the USSR entering the war had a lot more to do with their decision to surrender than dropping a-bombs did.

You're diverting. The fact remains Japan still had the capacity and the will to wage war and Truman was right and the duty to end it in the quickest, least damaging way to America. All your Monday morning q-back stuff is pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.

Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.

The bombs were unnecessary. Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.

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.
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...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives. That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children. The war was over by July '45. Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne. There was no need for America to invade the mainland. There was no need to occupy Japan.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because it is bullshit. They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Even AFTER two atomic bombs and the Soviets attacking, the Emperor was nearly assassinated for ordering the surrender!

 

[gipper]

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."

Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.

That's it? You claim some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).

Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945. If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.

 

[SAYIT]

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."

Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.

That's it? You claim some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).

Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945. If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.

Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?

 

[Unkotare]

They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!

Don't be stupid.

 

[SAYIT]

They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!

Don't be stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/international/asia/20okinawa.html

 

[JoeB131]

We could not of had peace in 1944.

The Emperor never sought peace.

The Military never sought peace.

If you honestly believe that we had a chance in 1944, show us how. Who, when, and where?

Best place to actually base this on history is to search Dulles, Sweden, Japanese Surrender.

Do you actually know the story of the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki? It is a great story, you can actually read that story without upsetting your other "ideas" of what happened in WW II.

A chance for peace in 1944?

Yeah, when Tojo was replaced as Prime Minister.

I mean, I'm really not talking to you anymore, because you're like a fucking crazy person.