Hiroshima and Nagasaki - did they really end the war.

[daveman]

The above from one of the ultimate fabricators on the Board.

I wrote he had the votes and he didn't do it. I don't want single payer, I want a president to act like a president. I also said the death panels are the result of the stupid right's politics. But, you, daveman, are for health insurance death panels.

Stay focused, daveman.

Man up, kid, and accept responsibility for what you did: You criticized Obama for not being far enough left. Mainstream Republicans don't do that, even if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.

You are not a mainstream Republican, daveman, and you are a iiar. I said he had the votes and he didn't do it.

And you are for health insurance death panels, daveman. Quit running.

 

[martybegan]

It did not end the war

From the Imperial Rescript on the Surrender of Japan, in the Emperor's own words:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Seems the bombs had a pretty big influence on the surrender.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

-ADMIRAL William Leahy,
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

You really do not get japanese culture at the time, as well as the poltical situation. Even if a large portion of the population wanted to surrender, the Army was in control of the government, and the population via the police. Japanese culture is far more accomodating to authority than american culture, and barring total societal breakdown a large majority would have followed the armies directive and the emperor's exhortation to "die to the last man/woman" The mass civilian suicides in Saipain are a preview of what would have happened if we occupied areas on the japanese home islands.

Leahy also said this about the bomb:


"This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Man up, kid, and accept responsibility for what you did: You criticized Obama for not being far enough left. Mainstream Republicans don't do that, even if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.

You are not a mainstream Republican, daveman, and you are a iiar. I said he had the votes and he didn't do it.

And you are for health insurance death panels, daveman. Quit running.

 

[SW2SILVER]

This is an ideological quagmire. The use of the A-Bomb in Japan was unprecedented. Now, given the luxury of foresight, we can condemn the use atomic weapons. At the time, the Japanese were kicking ass, they were the bullies. They were invading indo-china with imperialist ambitions. Somebody came along and kicked their asses to stop them, we (Americans) were more ingenuous than the Japanese and more brutal. So… the Japanese paint themselves as victims here AFTER they get their asses kicked in a war THEY started? We had a bigger stick than they did, and don't kid yourself, these same poor Japanese wouldn’t have blinked if they nuked LA or San Francisco if they had the same weapon. Please….

 

[Divine Wind]

True. Revisionist history is refuted by the facts.

Bataan Death March

While the Japanese pounded Corregidor (which would surrender on May 6), they led their prisoners on a forced march out of Bataan. Before the "Death March" was over, those who survived would march more than sixty miles through intense heat with almost no water or food. Somewhere between 5,000 and 11,000 never made it to Camp O'Donnell, where fresh horrors awaited.

Rape of Nanking

In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the single worst atrocity during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war.

Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World - Revisiting World War II Atrocities - Comparing the Unspeakable to the Unthinkable - NYTimes.com

AUSCHWITZ. Dachau. Ping Fan. Changchun. In the shorthand of World War II atrocities, some names are more recognizable than others.

But while Nazi scientists like Josef Mengele conducted hideous experiments on concentration camp prisoners, their lesser-known Japanese counterparts, led by Gen. Shiro Ishii, were waging full-scale biological warfare and subjecting human beings to ghastly experiments of their own -- and on a far greater scale than the Germans.

''Imagine hundreds of Mengeles,'' said Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, who has been calling on the Japanese to face up to their past as openly as the Germans have.

Ping Fan, built by General Ishii, the mastermind of Japanese germ warfare and its infamous Unit 731, was a camp of plague-bearing fleas, rat cages and warrens for human guinea pigs. Changchun, 150 miles south, was another huge installation for germ tests on plants, animals and people.

Though not approaching the systematic exterminations by the Nazis, the Japanese record of atrocities -- what victims call ''the Asian Holocaust'' -- is still producing revelations more than 50 years after the end of World War II. The delay illustrates the West's Eurocentric view of wartime suffering as well as striking differences in the willingness of the two former Axis allies to come to terms with their past. It has also thrown a harsh light on cold-war rivalries. As early as 1949, the Soviet Union convicted 12 Japanese for biological war crimes. Although the published transcript contained exhaustive details of Unit 731's crimes, the accounts were largely ignored or dismissed in the West as Communist propaganda. The Allies did, however, prosecute 5,570 Japanese, but none for biological warfare.

 

[daveman]

True. Revisionist history is refuted by the facts.

Bataan Death March

While the Japanese pounded Corregidor (which would surrender on May 6), they led their prisoners on a forced march out of Bataan. Before the "Death March" was over, those who survived would march more than sixty miles through intense heat with almost no water or food. Somewhere between 5,000 and 11,000 never made it to Camp O'Donnell, where fresh horrors awaited.

Rape of Nanking

In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the single worst atrocity during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war.

Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World - Revisiting World War II Atrocities - Comparing the Unspeakable to the Unthinkable - NYTimes.com

AUSCHWITZ. Dachau. Ping Fan. Changchun. In the shorthand of World War II atrocities, some names are more recognizable than others.

But while Nazi scientists like Josef Mengele conducted hideous experiments on concentration camp prisoners, their lesser-known Japanese counterparts, led by Gen. Shiro Ishii, were waging full-scale biological warfare and subjecting human beings to ghastly experiments of their own -- and on a far greater scale than the Germans.

''Imagine hundreds of Mengeles,'' said Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, who has been calling on the Japanese to face up to their past as openly as the Germans have.

Ping Fan, built by General Ishii, the mastermind of Japanese germ warfare and its infamous Unit 731, was a camp of plague-bearing fleas, rat cages and warrens for human guinea pigs. Changchun, 150 miles south, was another huge installation for germ tests on plants, animals and people.

Though not approaching the systematic exterminations by the Nazis, the Japanese record of atrocities -- what victims call ''the Asian Holocaust'' -- is still producing revelations more than 50 years after the end of World War II. The delay illustrates the West's Eurocentric view of wartime suffering as well as striking differences in the willingness of the two former Axis allies to come to terms with their past. It has also thrown a harsh light on cold-war rivalries. As early as 1949, the Soviet Union convicted 12 Japanese for biological war crimes. Although the published transcript contained exhaustive details of Unit 731's crimes, the accounts were largely ignored or dismissed in the West as Communist propaganda. The Allies did, however, prosecute 5,570 Japanese, but none for biological warfare.

And Truthseeker (snerk!) insists WE'RE the bad guys.

Moron.

 

[SW2SILVER]

All the facts point out that the A-bomb DID stop the horrors the Japanese were perpetrating since the 30’s. They bombed the US ( Pearl Harbor) because of the oil embargo. We were trying to stop or slow the Japanese invasion in China and the horrors the JAPANESE visited on the innocent people there…The Japanese didn’t show much humanitarian concerns, how odd they invoke the inhumanity of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the tables were turned…They protest a little to much.

 

[JoeB131]

I lived on Kyushu, close to Nagasaki. Been there many times. Beautiful city (today).

Trust me - the bombs did MUCH damage. 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima, 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki

You don't find that significant ?

Considering that 4 million Japanese and 70 million people had already died, not really.

The Japanese were much more afraid of their country being partitioned with the USSR.

 

[JoeB131]

I lived on Kyushu, close to Nagasaki. Been there many times. Beautiful city (today).

Trust me - the bombs did MUCH damage. 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima, 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki

You don't find that significant ?

I think his point was that we could have done as much damage with conventional bombing. Like the firebombing of Tokyo. They didn't surrender after that one

Government notes FROM the Japanese Government at the time prove conclusively that the Emperor forced the Army running the Government to surrender after the second atomic bomb. And even with their LIVING GOD demanding a surrender with no terms, the Imperial Army mounted a Coup to prevent his recorded words from being broadcast and to prevent the surrender.

Prior to the bombs Japan's Government DEMANDED terms that were not surrender. Even the OP admits that.

But a key point here, Gunny. We accepted terms. Before the USSR got into it, we insisted on unconditional surrender, including the abdication of Hirohito. But after the USSR got in, we were willing to accept Hirohito remaining on the throne, and even made efforts to downplay his role in the actual war.

We didn't want the USSR to get a stronger hold on Asia like they were getting in Eastern Europe. So we were willing to accept a little less than surrender. (Also, public opinion was turning against the war as well after Okinawa.)

 

[JoeB131]

Nukes ended the war. Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting. WWII was devastating on a global scale. The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.

Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be "extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties."

The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima gave indications of how high the casualty rates would be on both sides. We've lost about 7000 American deaths in 10 years of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Can anyone imagine the calamity of losing that many in a single battle with even bigger battles on the horizon? If given the choice to drop a new weapon as a means to force surrender or invade and incur tens of thousands of more dead Americans, I wouldn't have to think twice on my choice.

I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.

I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.

Keep in mind that from Pearl Harbor, the Japanese never thought they could beat the US. THey thought they could drag the war on long enough to get terms favorable to them. Because this is pretty much what had happened in their war with Russia in 1905. The prospect of their exhausted Armies on the mainland facing hardened Soviet Troops who could then threaten the homeland made surrender to the relatively benign Americans seem much more palatable.

 

[JoeB131]

Where were all these brave arm chair Generals during the war? Our Military really could have used guys like ginscpy and joeb131.

Well, I hadn't been born yet.

Now, During the Gulf War, I was a Staff Sergeant in the US Army... good enough for you?

 

[martybegan]

Nukes ended the war. Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting. WWII was devastating on a global scale. The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.

Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be "extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties."

The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima gave indications of how high the casualty rates would be on both sides. We've lost about 7000 American deaths in 10 years of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Can anyone imagine the calamity of losing that many in a single battle with even bigger battles on the horizon? If given the choice to drop a new weapon as a means to force surrender or invade and incur tens of thousands of more dead Americans, I wouldn't have to think twice on my choice.

I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.

I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.

Keep in mind that from Pearl Harbor, the Japanese never thought they could beat the US. THey thought they could drag the war on long enough to get terms favorable to them. Because this is pretty much what had happened in their war with Russia in 1905. The prospect of their exhausted Armies on the mainland facing hardened Soviet Troops who could then threaten the homeland made surrender to the relatively benign Americans seem much more palatable.

The entry of the soviets was more of a blow to thier diplomatic chances than to the security of the main islands. While thier troops in china were in trouble, the entry of the soviets would actually be a good excuse for them to withdraw thier troops back to the mainland (if they had any transport remaining)

The one weakness of the soviet army in WWII was its complete lack of amphibious ability. That was the one area of combat they did not participate in, and they had no real landing craft.

 

[SW2SILVER]

I lost an Uncle in the Pacific. Another fought in Iwo Jima. My father took a Japanese bullet in the arm, had it been two inches over, I wouldn’t be here. I don’t hold in high regard all the pedantic and pathetic reasons against using the nuclear bombs in Japan. It was a new tool in the arsenal. Nobody knew what would have happened when it was used, and it hasn’t been used SINCE. On the other hand, nobody knew how many people would have died a inevitable assault on Japan, and how many months or years that would have taken. It is arguable the two bombs saved more lives than it took. The Japanese surrendered BECAUSE of the A-bombs, their own emperor SAID so. That speaks for itself...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again, the Government notes from Japan make it clear, before the 1st Atomic Bomb the Army which Controlled the Government, was not interested in surrender. And after the 1st bomb still made demands, was not willing to surrender.

After the second bomb the Army STILL refused to surrender. ONLY the intervention of the Emperor ended the war. And even then the Army attempted a COUP to prevent the LIVING GOD that was their Emperor from surrendering.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.

I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.

1) Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Hiroshima. July 24th, 1945 to be exact: Atomic Bomb: Decision - Truman Tells Stalin, July 24, 1945

Note the Soviet version versus the Western version then compare it to the comments above. Guess where some people are getting their "info".

2) The Soviets attacked Japan on August 9th, same day as Nagasaki. It seems to me to be more of a "land grab" by the Soviet Union in order to take as much territory as possible before the war ended. They already were seeing how Europe was being divided up by the West. As the Soviet notes in #1 above pointed out (in retrospect I think) they were looking ahead to the next war or the Cold War. Soviets attack Japan

In summary, I do not believe Truman dropped the bombs because of the Soviets. He dropped them to end the war and the death of Americans as quickly as possible.

 

[JoeB131]

Nukes ended the war. Almost half a million Americans died in only four years of fighting. WWII was devastating on a global scale. The goal was to end it as quickly as possible due to the severe loss of life being incurred.

Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be "extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties."

The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima gave indications of how high the casualty rates would be on both sides. We've lost about 7000 American deaths in 10 years of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Can anyone imagine the calamity of losing that many in a single battle with even bigger battles on the horizon? If given the choice to drop a new weapon as a means to force surrender or invade and incur tens of thousands of more dead Americans, I wouldn't have to think twice on my choice.

I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.

I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.

Keep in mind that from Pearl Harbor, the Japanese never thought they could beat the US. THey thought they could drag the war on long enough to get terms favorable to them. Because this is pretty much what had happened in their war with Russia in 1905. The prospect of their exhausted Armies on the mainland facing hardened Soviet Troops who could then threaten the homeland made surrender to the relatively benign Americans seem much more palatable.

The entry of the soviets was more of a blow to thier diplomatic chances than to the security of the main islands. While thier troops in china were in trouble, the entry of the soviets would actually be a good excuse for them to withdraw thier troops back to the mainland (if they had any transport remaining)

The one weakness of the soviet army in WWII was its complete lack of amphibious ability. That was the one area of combat they did not participate in, and they had no real landing craft.

But they did have a fairly effective airborne corps. Land a few divisions by air, secure an airfield, and then start flying in troops and material. They more than had the capability.

Also, keep in mind, securing their gains in China were the main reason why they were continuing the war. But the Kwantung army in Manchuria was swept up in days.

 

[High_Gravity]

Where were all these brave arm chair Generals during the war? Our Military really could have used guys like ginscpy and joeb131.

Well, I hadn't been born yet.

Now, During the Gulf War, I was a Staff Sergeant in the US Army... good enough for you?

If thats true than shame on you, you should know better than to say foolish things like Japan getting nuked wasn't significant for them to end the war, even a 4th grade boy would know that it was.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB, I honor your service.

However, your understanding of the nukes' effect on Japan's surrender is inaccurate.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not faulting Truman's decision to use the weapon, althought both Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did.

I question whether the real factor was in fact the entry of the USSR, and how that changed the aspect of the war.

Keep in mind that from Pearl Harbor, the Japanese never thought they could beat the US. THey thought they could drag the war on long enough to get terms favorable to them. Because this is pretty much what had happened in their war with Russia in 1905. The prospect of their exhausted Armies on the mainland facing hardened Soviet Troops who could then threaten the homeland made surrender to the relatively benign Americans seem much more palatable.

The entry of the soviets was more of a blow to thier diplomatic chances than to the security of the main islands. While thier troops in china were in trouble, the entry of the soviets would actually be a good excuse for them to withdraw thier troops back to the mainland (if they had any transport remaining)

The one weakness of the soviet army in WWII was its complete lack of amphibious ability. That was the one area of combat they did not participate in, and they had no real landing craft.

But they did have a fairly effective airborne corps. Land a few divisions by air, secure an airfield, and then start flying in troops and material. They more than had the capability.

Also, keep in mind, securing their gains in China were the main reason why they were continuing the war. But the Kwantung army in Manchuria was swept up in days.

The only time two times an airhead was maintained soley by air resupply ended with mixed results. Crete for the germans was a disaster, and only the lack of british reinforcements prevented the airborne forces defeat. The lack of german seaborne reinforcement (it was sunk) almost ruined the sucessful invasion of the island, and it decimated the german paratrooop forces.

The other was the Arnhem landing of Market Garden, and there the airhead was defeated, even with airborne resupply, due to the inability of follow up ground forces to link up with the airborne troops in a short enough time period.

i agree that control of China was the overall goal of the Japanese war strategy, but I think they would have pulled back to preserve thier home islands in the worst case scenario.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The entry of the soviets was more of a blow to thier diplomatic chances than to the security of the main islands. While thier troops in china were in trouble, the entry of the soviets would actually be a good excuse for them to withdraw thier troops back to the mainland (if they had any transport remaining)

The one weakness of the soviet army in WWII was its complete lack of amphibious ability. That was the one area of combat they did not participate in, and they had no real landing craft.

But they did have a fairly effective airborne corps. Land a few divisions by air, secure an airfield, and then start flying in troops and material. They more than had the capability.

Also, keep in mind, securing their gains in China were the main reason why they were continuing the war. But the Kwantung army in Manchuria was swept up in days.

The only time two times an airhead was maintained soley by air resupply ended with mixed results. Crete for the germans was a disaster, and only the lack of british reinforcements prevented the airborne forces defeat. The lack of german seaborne reinforcement (it was sunk) almost ruined the sucessful invasion of the island, and it decimated the german paratrooop forces.

The other was the Arnhem landing of Market Garden, and there the airhead was defeated, even with airborne resupply, due to the inability of follow up ground forces to link up with the airborne troops in a short enough time period.

Goring promised Hitler his Luftwaffe could supply Sixth Army in the Stalingrad by air alone in November 1942. That effort failed miserably.