Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[SAYIT]

I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.

Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.

The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.

 

[SAYIT]

No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.

Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else. Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!

Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.

Absolute BS.
Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).

 

[Unkotare]

I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.

Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.

The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.

Whatever conclusion one may reach, trying to reduce a question like this to anything simple is lazy and weak-minded.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...

It wasn't necessary and would have caused a war between the US and USSR in Europe. The USSR did not know how many atom bombs we had. It was the start of the Cold War. US wasn't going to share the spoils of Japan in exchange for a few days of fighting by the USSR. They were satisfied in getting China, North Korea and the Kuril Islands. Point is the dates of dropping the bombs and was not coincidental. Dropping the bombs were directly related to the USSR breaking the neutrality pact and entering the war and hence make the bombing more about political with economic rewards than militarily strategic necessities.

The russians knew precicly how many bombs we had. Stalin had better knowledge on the manhattan project than truman had.

 

[Camp]

Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...

It wasn't necessary and would have caused a war between the US and USSR in Europe. The USSR did not know how many atom bombs we had. It was the start of the Cold War. US wasn't going to share the spoils of Japan in exchange for a few days of fighting by the USSR. They were satisfied in getting China, North Korea and the Kuril Islands. Point is the dates of dropping the bombs and was not coincidental. Dropping the bombs were directly related to the USSR breaking the neutrality pact and entering the war and hence make the bombing more about political with economic rewards than militarily strategic necessities.

The russians knew precicly how many bombs we had. Stalin had better knowledge on the manhattan project than truman had.

Really? I knew that the USSR had plenty of spies, but I didn't realize they had the kind of knowledge you are speaking of. Which spy had the knowledge of the number of bombs the USA had ready for use in August of 1945. Maybe you could provide a link?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The venona project. You have heard of it?

 

[regent]

American scientists that worked on the American A bomb estimated it would take the USSR four years to build their own bomb. The USSR exploded its first bomb on 8/29/49 a few days late, but four years later as the American scientists had predicted. Four years seems to be the norm, it took America 31/2 years, and there was some doubt if it could be built. After America exploded her first it was now known it could be done.

 

[Camp]

The venona project. You have heard of it?

Yes, where in it does it say the USSR knew the number of bombs produced and available? Is it possible that you are making an assumption?

 

[JoeB131]

The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.

Well, no, the estimates of fatalities for the US side was only 46,000. The Home Army was not well equipped to fight a long war.

the 500,000 figure is something Truman and others pulled out of their asses later when people started realizing the implication of these weapons.

The reality was, the Japanese were already ready to surrender, were desperately trying to do so. The entry of the USSR into the war was the deciding factor.

 

[JoeB131]

Absolute BS.
Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).

We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us. Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.

The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference. A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.

 

[elektra]

No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.

Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else. Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!

Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.

That is not the history.

Thus far you have claimed Japan was beat, yet after Japan was beat The USSR declared war on Japan?

You claim that the USSR caused Japan to Surrender, yet after the USSR declared war on Japan, Japan did not Surrender.

Japan and the USSR fought until Sept. 2nd, 1945.

Japan Surrendered to the Allies, to the USA on Aug. 15th, 1945.

It is the little things in the Revisionist logic they can not explain.

If Russia forced Japan to surrender to the Allies on August 15th 1945. why did Russia have to physically fight the Japanese until Sept 2nd, 1945.

How did 20,000 Russian soldiers die after August 15th 1945 when the, "entire World knew", the Japanese were beaten, defenseless, unable to inflict casualties?

If you are a Communist (the USSR version of Marxism), the Japanese obviously Surrendered on Sept. 2nd of 1945. When the Japanese Army and the Russian Army quit hostilities, which happened to be on the day of the Formal Surrender Ceremony.

On August 19th a Japanese Delegation left Japan, for Manila, where the same day they discussed the Terms of Surrender, at the Manila Conference.

Yet, Russia and Japan were fighting, Japan had not surrendered to Russia, the War in Manchuria between Japan and Russia attest to that fact.

Confusing the Revisionists make things.

 

[elektra]

The venona project. You have heard of it?

Oppenheimer heard of it. If they knew it was Oppenheimer, hence wise to take his Top Secret security clearance.

 

[Camp]

The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.

Well, no, the estimates of fatalities for the US side was only 46,000. The Home Army was not well equipped to fight a long war.

the 500,000 figure is something Truman and others pulled out of their asses later when people started realizing the implication of these weapons.

The reality was, the Japanese were already ready to surrender, were desperately trying to do so. The entry of the USSR into the war was the deciding factor.

That 46,000 casualties figure is suspect and not reliable. Track it yourself if you wish, but my research could only trace it to an "Afterward" by Barton Bernstein for an essay about the bombing debates entitled Judgementat the Smithsonian. I could not find or trace where Bernstein got those numbers other than his "assessment". Seems like a pretty big and important factor in the discussion to depend on ones mans opinion. But maybe you know of other sources for this estimate of 46,000 casualties that don't come from Bernstein.

 

[SAYIT]

I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.

Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.

The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.

Whatever conclusion one may reach, trying to reduce a question like this to anything simple is lazy and weak-minded.

The point you so assiduously avoided (talk about lazy and weak-minded) is that "hundreds of thousands" were not killed by the bombs - in fact hundreds of thousands of lives were saved - and that JoeB LIED because his arguments are so lazy and weak-minded.

 

[SAYIT]

The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.

Well, no, the estimates of fatalities for the US side was only 46,000. The Home Army was not well equipped to fight a long war.

the 500,000 figure is something Truman and others pulled out of their asses later when people started realizing the implication of these weapons...

More of your absolute (and unsupported) BS and your claim that "Truman and others pulled [the estimate] out of their asses later" has already been completely debunked by those who were there in 1945:

• 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."

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[SAYIT]

Absolute BS.
Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).

We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us. Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.

The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference. A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.

All your OPINION but a far cry from reality. Indeed those you named had outrageous civilian casualties but there would have been no western front to relieve the pressure on Russia had US military might and hardware not been involved. I remind you that the US suffered 420,000 dead ... a number you seem to find insignificant.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Absolute BS.
Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).

We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us. Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.

The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference. A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.

All your OPINION but a far cry from reality. Indeed those you named had outrageous civilian casualties but there would have been no western front to relieve the pressure on Russia had US military might and hardware not been involved. I remind you that the US suffered 420,000 dead ... a number you seem to find insignificant.

Joey also ignores (basically: he covers his ears and hollers, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 3-year-old any time it is mentioned the fact that the Soviets would most likely have collapsed without it) the millions of tons of supplies that the Soviets got through Lend-Lease.

Then again...he simply isn't all that bright.

 

[SAYIT]

Absolute BS.
Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).

We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us. Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.

The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference. A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.

All your OPINION but a far cry from reality. Indeed those you named had outrageous civilian casualties but there would have been no western front to relieve the pressure on Russia had US military might and hardware not been involved. I remind you that the US suffered 420,000 dead ... a number you seem to find insignificant.

Joey also ignores (basically: he covers his ears and hollers, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 3-year-old any time it is mentioned the fact that the Soviets would most likely have collapsed without it) the millions of tons of supplies that the Soviets got through Lend-Lease.

Then again...he simply isn't all that bright.

He suffers from ideological disconnect. Anything which conflicts with his ideology - in this case his disdain for America - is to be avoided like the plague.

 

[Syriusly]

We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.

The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.

Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.

A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock. Easy-peasy.

Really? LOL......please tell me more?

Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?

The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?

Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.

 

[Syriusly]

No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.

Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else. Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!

Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.

No- some historians conclude that.

Others don't.