Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If by "we" you mean Truman and his inner circle, okay.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 the American people knew Japan offered to surrender, they would have demanded it be accepted.
Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.If by "we" you mean Truman and his inner circle, okay.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 the American people knew Japan offered to surrender, they would have demanded it be accepted.
And that was the point. By 1945, Americans were sick of World War II. They were sick of drafts, they were sick of rationing. they were sick of the men who would come by the house to inform you Little Johnny was coming home in a box. Or not coming home at all.
The reason why Okinawa was such a PR disaster was that it was the first time the folks back home got to see what a dead soldier looked like.
Yes, to the last child, if you read the posts, one side of this argument actually posts facts, not feelings.They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
Don't be stupid.
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"
Obviously, you are not so fast with Google, as you brag. Answers just can not be found by you.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.
Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
Obviously, you are not so fast with Google, as you brag. Answers just can not be found by you.
Yes, to the last child, ]They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
Don't be stupid.
I love America more than most. I do know that American pols lie and I hate lying and I am the opposite of a leftist.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.Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.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
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."
- 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.
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).
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?
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.Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.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
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."
- 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.
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).
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?
I love America more than most. I do know that American pols lie and I hate lying and I am the opposite of a leftist.
Let's see...the Japanese people who were starving were going to inflict 500k casualties on a battle hardened US military who controlled air and sea, with pitchforks.
Stop believing in fairy tales and lying progressive statists.
It is true the US Gov was indeed censoring photo's but Okinawa was not the first time a photo of a dead American was published. A full paged photo of three dead Americans at Buna was published in TIME magazine 1943.Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point. Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
The first pictures of American dead were published much earlier. they were from the battle of Buna early in the war, Dead GI's lying on the beach near Buna station, New Guinea.I strongly suspect from the 32nd division. The beach was called maggot beach. At that time it was pretty hard to hide things, even errors, but then people were not viewing the war as a political board game to enhance their political views. Today we have to paint everything with a political brush, even going back seventy years hoping to find some usable political fodder.Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point. Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
You thought? Stretching the truth again, are you!Yes, to the last child, ]They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
Don't be stupid.
I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.
The Japanese government was putting out feelers?Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point. Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
If our gov told the truth and showed pics of the damage and victims, Americans would have been apalled.Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral. Is that your position?.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.
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- 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.
I love America more than most.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.Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.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
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."
- 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.
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).
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?
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.Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.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
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."
- 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.
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).
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?
Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
I love America more than most.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.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).
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?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.Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it? Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war. All lies.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
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."
- 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.
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).
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?
What absolute crap.
Look- as a proud 'liberal'- I have been in this thread arguing against gipper from the beginning- so let me just say you are just full of crap in your claims.
FDR was a 'leftist'- Truman was a 'leftist'- I am a 'leftist'- saying we all hate America is absurd- and stupid as when someone says all Conservatives are racists or all Conservatives are fascists- it is stupid- and ignorant.
I will say this again- this is monday morning quarterbacking 60 years after the fact. America was convinced that we needed an unconditional surrender from Japan and was prepared to invade- and suffer horrific casualties. Dropping atomic bombs seemed at the time to be logical alternatives- and we do not know for certain how anything would have turned out if we didn't.
We do know that Japan went from being one of the most imperialistic and jingoistic nations prior to the war, to being a vibrant democracy and ally today. We know what we did achieved both our short term and long term goals.
The Japanese government was putting out feelers?
You still have not came up with a good Goggle answer, have you. The Japanese would never of surrendered, not after the Fire Bombing in Tokyo, not after the lost of Okinawa, funny how the Japanese never quit shooting, never quit Hari Kari, funny how so many fought to the death, took not one but two Nuclear attacks, and even then it was pretty rough for them to Surrender.
Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.
This has all been done. Japan and the US were negotiating peace even as Japanese ships were steaming to Pearl Harbor to bomb us. The peace feelers she sent to the USSR were an attempt to set up a Japanese-USSR alliance. If Japan wanted peace she had but to contact the US.Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.
Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb. We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.
Here you go... but don't tell Elektra...It's from the internet and she has "books">
Guide to Decision Part I
- Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. (See pp. 232-233, Chapter 18) Many other "peace feelers" had preceded this move. (See Chapter 2)
- Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.
