Japanese man survives 2 atomic bombs!

[Freiwillige]

Here is an interesting piece I picked up. poor old sod. Got bombed not once but twice and was injured in both! I know tht there are plenty of arguments for and against us bombing Japan but in my eyes, not our proudest moment. Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2009/03/the-luckiest-or.html:-?

[Nicolas]

There is no way to get proud in any form of war, but i think if U.S. didnt finish the war with the bomb, the cost of lives civilians or soldiers would be far more, imagine if the U.S. had to invade Japan.:dead:

[Zachstar]

Yes the atomic bomb was a terror like attack because its sole intention was to force them to surrender by fear of additional attacks on the polulace.

We have no right to argue either way. It was war that BOTH sides were prepared to see to the bloody end and if they had the weapon they would have used it as well.

There IS no right answer when it comes to nukes.

[baggygreen]

but to refer to yourselves as terrorists for using the bomb is wrong.

it was a different type of war to those fought today by us, in the sense that anyone and everything on the enemy's land was fair game. the more dead, the less of them to come at you.

always, always remember the mindset of the time

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Interesting then, that we don't make an allowance that the enemy might still be using that mindset. Kind of unfair to call for a "Kill All" mindset when it is convenient for us, and then "close the gate" when it is not.

[baggygreen]

I agree completely. hence the words "by us".

i can think of one enemy who abides by that mindset completely.

But going into that too much detracts from the thread, and the lucky SOB who srvived both bombs

[Max2147]

This guy either has the best luck in the world or the worst luck in the world. I'm not sure which!

[Torplexed]

The scary thing is that even with the atomic bombing, the massive firebombings previous to those, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria the war still could have been prolonged. The Japanese militarists denied what had struck Hiroshima was even an atomic bomb. The Japanese cabinet remained split over surrender and the Emperor had to break the deadlock. A group of field officers organized a coup to halt the surrender and seized the Imperial Palace during the night of August 14-15 1945. The coup ultimately failed, however when War Minister Anami refused to participate. He chose to commit suicide instead.

Despite the Emperor's radio broadcast of the Imperial Rescript ending the war senior officers overseas refused to comply at first. The Emperor had to issue a second Rescript to finally bring Japanese commanders in the field to finally lay down their arms. Some still refused to comply and chose suicide. So, hard as it is to believe, even with the horrible tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan's surrender was still a close run thing.

[Aramike]

Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?There's no doubt we used terror to conclude the war. But that doesn't make us terrorists.

First off, the US being victorious over Japan was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how many American lives would be lost. Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.

Secondly, we were openly militarily engaged with Japan. Terrorists NEVER openly engage (unless defensively only, in which they almost always try to run).

It's silly to think that, due to the bomb we are somehow "terrorists". ALL wars involve "terror" as a weapon to one degree or another ... the difference is whether or not the weapon is used for expediency or as a sole resort.

[SteamWake]

Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?

I dont know, state of war and all that. :doh:

[Raptor1]

Both World Wars were total wars, that means that everybody, including civilians, is a legitimate target

Ignoring the fact that either bomb killed less people than the March 10 firebombing attack on Tokyo, which seems to be constantly forgotten. An invasion of Japan would've resulted in the deaths of a lot more civilians, and might even have resulted in the same sort of shaky truce that ended World War I if the invasion failed...

So, the way I see it, if the Allies went ahead with Operation Downfall, people right now would probably be complaining about the fact that they should've just dropped the A-Bombs and spared everybody of the slaughter

[Jimbuna]

There's no doubt we used terror to conclude the war. But that doesn't make us terrorists.

First off, the US being victorious over Japan was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how many American lives would be lost. Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.

Secondly, we were openly militarily engaged with Japan. Terrorists NEVER openly engage (unless defensively only, in which they almost always try to run).

It's silly to think that, due to the bomb we are somehow "terrorists". ALL wars involve "terror" as a weapon to one degree or another ... the difference is whether or not the weapon is used for expediency or as a sole resort.

Agreed....it was estimated that had an invasion taken place, the allies might have suffered over a million casualties.

Taking into account the mindset of the Japanese and the by then well known facts regarding their inhumane treatment of their foes, I doubt any POTUS or any other allied leader for that matter would have been able to justify the potential losses to their people.

[OneToughHerring]

There's no doubt we used terror to conclude the war. But that doesn't make us terrorists.

First off, the US being victorious over Japan was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how many American lives would be lost. Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.

Secondly, we were openly militarily engaged with Japan. Terrorists NEVER openly engage (unless defensively only, in which they almost always try to run).

Oh ok, only American military lives matter, Japanese civilian lives are worth less.

What do you mean terrorists don't openly engage? Organisations referred to as terrorist organisations almost always release a declaration of war against their enemy. There is no rule of war that says that one should "openly engage" the enemy in any way.

Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.Well isn't that kind of what makes the whole thing morally questinable? What you call terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war, the US would have had the option of using traditional military force or the nukes, and they chose nukes.

It's silly to think that, due to the bomb we are somehow "terrorists". ALL wars involve "terror" as a weapon to one degree or another ... the difference is whether or not the weapon is used for expediency or as a sole resort.So what you are saying is that "terrorism" is just a concept, a word used to demonize a particular group. State terrorism is another concept, used to describe states that use terror methods.

[Jimbuna]

Here we go again :nope:

[Raptor1]

I don't usually engage in never-ending debates, but maybe just this once

If the bombs weren't dropped, the Allies would have had only 2 clear courses of action:

1. Keep blockading and firebombing Japan until they surrender, which would have required massive military forces to remain mobilized and ultimately caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of civilians

2. Implement Operation Downfall, which would also have caused the deaths of millions of civilians, seeing as Japanese civilians have been taught to resist the invaders at all costs, and could very well have failed, leading to some kind of less-than-satisfactory peace agreement

The bombs were not used to terrorize the population, but rather to shock the Japanese government into surrendering, which they did (Although just barely)

[Frame57]

Personally I would like tohave seen the war prolonged so that I could play more missions in SH4. (Just yoking....) Just curious though, does anyone here have any insight as to why Nagasaki and Hiroshima was targeted from a tactical standpoint?

[Raptor1]

Personally I would like tohave seen the war prolonged so that I could play more missions in SH4. (Just yoking....) Just curious though, does anyone here have any insight as to why Nagasaki and Hiroshima was targeted from a tactical standpoint?

IIRC, Hiroshima was targeted because it was supposed to be a major assembly and communication hub for Japanese troops in the invasion (It was also left completely unscathed by the firebombing campaign)

Nagasaki, which was a major port and industrial center (also rather untouched by firebombing), was actually the secondary target of Bockscar. Kokura, the primary target, was obscured by clouds on that morning

[OneToughHerring]

There were plans to drop several more nukes after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Interestingly Hiroshima was not bombed with traditional bombing so it was in pristine condition giving the Americans a chance to test the effects of the bomb. So in part the bombing of Hiroshima was just a test with real people.

Also it's good to know that allied P.O.W's also died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

One rationale for the dropping of the bombs was that there was supposed to be a fierce resistance on the Japanese mainland. However, by that point the Japanese airforce with the last ditch weapons such as the Kamikaze-attacks had pretty much seized to exist. So it was just a fight between the remaining Japanese land troops on the continent against the allied air-, sea- and landpower.

Were there any fixed resistance points such as bunkers etc. on the Japanese mainland? Were the Japanese land forces in a state to continue fighting at that point? I've never seen any reliable info on these types of issues.

[TFatseas]

I'm just going to throw this in here.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of _the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/

It was meant as a rebuttal against Jon Stewart for calling Harry Truman a war criminal, but for just over 15min it is about as comprehensive as you can get.

[Torplexed]

Japanese leaders didn't stumble through 1945 in a blind trance. They devised a shrewd military and political strategy called Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive) It's premise was that American morale was brittle and could be broken by inflicting an enormous bloodletting in the initial invasion of Japan. Even if that invasion succeeded, Japanese leaders believed that American politicians would would recoil from the causalities and give up the effort to continue the conquest of Japan.

Imperial Headquarters embarked on a huge program of homeland reinforcement. From Manchuria came four divisions (2 armored and 2 infantry) But far and away the largest increase in strength came from a February 26th, 1945 order for a gigantic three-phase mobilization program. Once it was complete the homeland's defenders would muster 60 divisions. (36 field and counterattack) 22 coastal combat, two armored and 34 brigades (27 infantry and 7 tank) The combined strength of the homeland armies would reach 2,903,000 men, 292,000 horse, and 27,500 motor vehicles.

In addition under the "National Resistance Program" all able-bodied civilians regardless of age were called up for possible combat. This involved all males ages 15 to 60 and all females ages 17 to 40. The Japanese also had around 10,700 aircraft hoarded for homeland defense.

Japan was far from just a burnt-out shell that would have crumbled when the first American troops stepped ashore. While I think American troops would have gotten ashore eventually with the aid of a massive naval bombardment the fight inland would have been prolonged and bloody. Japan is a mountainous country, perfect for the defensive and guerrilla operations. Like Raptor 1 said above, the question would have been why didn't we just drop the bomb and be done with it?

[SteamWake]

On a side note, my late father in law as a naval officer visited Hiroshima shortly after the bombing.

He passed away from cancer. :(

[OneToughHerring]

I don't think the Japanese moral was very high at that point anymore. And the airforce wouldn't have had much of an effect after a while, if at all. It's a question of who has the air superiority and once that has been established the planes on the ground don't really matter that much.

It's also a question of civilian lives vs. soldiers. 200 000 or so civilian casualties or possibly even more over time is big prize to pay. It is on par with what went on in German concentration camps.

The traditional bombing of Japan had already accounted for 1,5 - 2 million civilian deaths including the firebombing of Tokyo so on the other hand it's not like civilian deaths were a new thing. The nuclear bombings will still remain an issue especially for the Japanese who will not forget them, or forgive them. Had the US lost they would have been charged with war crimes and people like Curtis Le May have acknowledged this.

[Platapus]

War crimes are often a tool used by the winners as justification to hang the losers.

[FIREWALL]

I think in this discussion we're forgetting something.

Japan did a sneak attack on the US FIRST.

They brought our fighting forces INTO the war.

[Torplexed]

I don't think the Japanese moral was very high at that point anymore. And the airforce wouldn't have had much of an effect after a while, if at all. It's a question of who has the air superiority and once that has been established the planes on the ground don't really matter that much.

Tell that to any American soldier who fought on Okinawa. We had complete control of the air and the sea and it was still a difficult drawn-out fight in which Japanese forces didn't meekly surrender despite their hopeless situation. And Okinawa is only a fraction of the size of Kyushu which would have been the first of the Japanese Islands invaded.

[Raptor1]

Don't forget that Japan's oil situation was hopeless at that point, so those 10,700 planes would have to be used in kamikaze attacks (More than 5 times as many as had been used in Okinawa) on US forces, which would probably have effected the invasion and Allied morale a great deal

The fact remains that far more of the people that were classified as civilians in August would have died had the invasion taken place

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Consider this, the japanese lost 300,000 civilians during the course of WW2. But a country that was only partly under japanese control, China lost 10,000,000 civilians. It is known that during the invasion of China appart from allowing their armys to rape and pillage, the japanese used chemical weapons against chinese civilians. Don't forget that China was this allies with the US. As for the "kill em all" mentaity of the time was because the US government was worried that the civilian populas of Japan would start a restance movment if the US invaded Japan, simular ideas where used on the civilians of Germany as well. The terror bombing tactics used by the USAAF against Japan and Germany and by the RAF in europe where founded on only one thing, fear.

[Raptor1]

the japanese lost 300,000 civilians

Sorry, where did that number come from?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the March Tokyo raid must reach over 200,000 dead by themselves, so I would expect there to be more than 300,000...

[Torplexed]

For what it's worth Wikipedia lists Japanese wartime civilian dead at 580,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[Jimbuna]

Sorry, where did that number come from?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the March Tokyo raid must reach over 200,000 dead by themselves, so I would expect there to be more than 300,000...

It is estimated Japan lost 580,000 civilian and 2.12 million military....3.78% of her 1939 population.

[Raptor1]

That number makes more sense, thanks

[Jimbuna]

Tsutomu Yamaguchi has been revealed as the only known survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb attacks.

He has survived to the ripe old age of 93 and, although details of his medical history have been kept private, he is described as a little deaf in one ear.

The hearing in the other three is said to be perfectly fine.

[GoldenRivet]

Here is an interesting piece I picked up. poor old sod. Got bombed not once but twice and was injured in both! I know tht there are plenty of arguments for and against us bombing Japan but in my eyes, not our proudest moment. Also since we targeted civilians with terror, would that not make us terrorists?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2009/03/the-luckiest-or.html:-?

considering that some of the largest concentrations of military men and equipment as well as industrial sites at the time were found in the two cities targeted i dont think it makes "us" terrorists.

by forcing Japan into surrender - Millions on millions of Japanese and American lives were saved.

[OneToughHerring]

Tell that to any American soldier who fought on Okinawa. We had complete control of the air and the sea and it was still a difficult drawn-out fight in which Japanese forces didn't meekly surrender despite their hopeless situation. And Okinawa is only a fraction of the size of Kyushu which would have been the first of the Japanese Islands invaded.

Like I said, I don't think the fighting spirit was there anymore or that the pure logistics for the fighting existed anymore. There were also attempts by the Japanese leadership to negotiate a surrender. Especially after the firebombing of Tokyo Hirohito began to plan an honorable surrender. I just don't think, and I'm not alone in thinking so, that the only way to achieve this honourable surrender would have been the two nukes, or possibly even more had certain circles gotten their wish.

As for the numbers, there are other figures too and not just on the Wikipedia. There have been studies about, for example, the firebombing of Tokyo. The Japanese and Americans have agreed on a number of 100 000 for that single bombing (there were several).

However there is cause to suggest that that particular figure is a gross understatement, based on both sides wishes to downplay the incident. The US didn't want to appear like a horrible civilian massacring monster and the Japanese did not want to alarm their population about the threat. When dealing with figures supplied by the Imperial Japanese authorities, a certain scepticism is in order since they were trying to downplay all of their losses.

Also the bombings of hundreds of other Japanese cities and towns could all be victim to similar downplaying of casualties. Large part of the wounded perished later, similarly to the nuclear bomb victims. So I would say that the 1,5 - 2 million figure is closer to truth then the 0,5 million.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

by forcing Japan into surrender - Millions on millions of Japanese and American lives were saved. This is true, the atomic bomb was a last resort weapon as many american army generals agreed that an invasion of Japan would be a disaster with large numbers of lives lost on both sides, so president Harry Truman green lighted the use of the a-bombs. Most major cities where on the target list with the excpetion of Tokyo. Oh those civilian casulites stats where taken from my book "Atlas of World War 2", and it also states "Quantifying the exact number of casulties in WW2 is an almost impossible task, and a precise death toll will never be available. It is generally estimated that some 40 to 50 million people died in the course of WW2. The number of civilian deaths was also particularly high. In Germany and Japan in particular, air attack was responsile for inflicting severe losses amongst civilian populations." So in other words the numbers of civilian losses in Japan that I posted where only a rough estimate.

[Raptor1]

Like I said, I don't think the fighting spirit was there anymore or that the pure logistics for the fighting existed anymore. There were also attempts by the Japanese leadership to negotiate a surrender. Especially after the firebombing of Tokyo Hirohito began to plan an honorable surrender. I just don't think, and I'm not alone in thinking so, that the only way to achieve this honourable surrender would have been the two nukes, or possibly even more had certain circles gotten their wish.

As for the numbers, there are other figures too and not just on the Wikipedia. There have been studies about, for example, the firebombing of Tokyo. The Japanese and Americans have agreed on a number of 100 000 for that single bombing (there were several).

However there is cause to suggest that that particular figure is a gross understatement, based on both sides wishes to downplay the incident. The US didn't want to appear like a horrible civilian massacring monster and the Japanese did not want to alarm their population about the threat. When dealing with figures supplied by the Imperial Japanese authorities, a certain scepticism is in order since they were trying to downplay all of their losses.

Also the bombings of hundreds of other Japanese cities and towns could all be victim to similar downplaying of casualties. Large part of the wounded perished later, similarly to the nuclear bomb victims. So I would say that the 1,5 - 2 million figure is closer to truth then the 0,5 million.

Was this the 'honourable surrender' that included no allied occupation and Japan disarming herself?

Such a surrender would be like the Treaty of Versailles reversed, and the resulting peace would similarly not last more than a couple of decades

@KHN - No problem, just wondered where the figure came from, 40-50 million is also about 10-20 million less than most modern estimates

[OneToughHerring]

Was this the 'honourable surrender' that included no allied occupation and Japan disarming herself?

Such a surrender would be like the Treaty of Versailles reversed, and the resulting peace would similarly not last more than a couple of decades


I'm not sure if the specifics were laid out, only that there were attempts to negotiate the surrender. These attempts continued up until the very end, right before the nukes were dropped.

If a surrender would have been agreed on then the subsequent situation would have been very different to the situation earlier during the war. The extent of foreign troops needed in Japan is another contentious issue that seems to cause debate even today.

[Max2147]

There were plans to drop several more nukes after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
Not true. There may have been vague plans further down the road for more atomic bombings, but after Hiroshima and Nagasaki we didn't have any atomic bombs left. It would have taken several months to build another.

One rationale for the dropping of the bombs was that there was supposed to be a fierce resistance on the Japanese mainland. However, by that point the Japanese airforce with the last ditch weapons such as the Kamikaze-attacks had pretty much seized to exist. So it was just a fight between the remaining Japanese land troops on the continent against the allied air-, sea- and landpower. Untrue. The Japanese had about 10,000 aircraft ready for kamikaze operations. By comparison, they used fewer than 2,000 in Okinawa.

Were there any fixed resistance points such as bunkers etc. on the Japanese mainland? Were the Japanese land forces in a state to continue fighting at that point? I've never seen any reliable info on these types of issues.The Japanese had about a million soldiers in Kyushu. There were plenty of bunkers and caves built, similar to what they had done on Okinawa. This is a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsushiro_Underground_Imperial_Headquarters

The Japanese also planned to mobilize their entire population against the invaders, arming them with whatever they could. They trained civilians to charge the attackers with bamboo spears . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps

And that's the real issue behind the atomic bomb question. Yes, the atomic bombings were horrible and killed lots of Japanese civilians. But way more JAPANESE CIVILIANS would have been killed in the invasion. In the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese went as far as to use Okinawa's civilians as human shields. They encouraged other civilians to commit mass suicide. Some estimates say that 1/3 of Okinawa's civilian population was killed in the invasion. Now imagine that happening in mainland Japan.

[Torplexed]

I'm not sure if the specifics were laid out, only that there were attempts to negotiate the surrender. These attempts continued up until the very end, right before the nukes were dropped.

This was probably the attempt at the Emperor’s bidding and in super secrecy to secure the Soviet Union as a mediator to procure a negotiated end to the war—not to surrender. They discussed a fantasy of offering the Soviets territory in Manchuria and the Kuriles in exchange for brokering a peace. They didn't even give the Soviets a chance to turn them down, but derailed their own negotiations with an even more fantastic dictum from the Supreme Command: The Fundamental Policy to be Followed henceforth in the Conduct of the War:

"With a faith born of eternal loyalty as our inspiration, we shall - thanks to the advantages of our terrain and the unity of our nation - prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to up hold our kokutai, protect the imperial land and achieve our goals of conquest."

Even in the last months of the war, Japan's leaders were thinking in terms of maintaining their brutal control of Asia. The Soviets stalled them anyway since they more than understood their hopeless position and were bent on gaining territory on Sakhalin Island and the Kuriles.

[OneToughHerring]

Not true. There may have been vague plans further down the road for more atomic bombings, but after Hiroshima and Nagasaki we didn't have any atomic bombs left. It would have taken several months to build another.

I wouldn't call them vague and it wouldn't have taken months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Plans_fo r_more_atomic_attacks_on_Japan

They'd already picked a bunch of potential targets too, I'll see if can find the list of other potential targets. There were several.

Untrue. The Japanese had about 10,000 aircraft ready for kamikaze operations. By comparison, they used fewer than 2,000 in Okinawa.

The Japanese had about a million soldiers in Kyushu. There were plenty of bunkers and caves built, similar to what they had done on Okinawa. This is a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsushiro_Underground_Imperial_Headquarters

The Japanese also planned to mobilize their entire population against the invaders, arming them with whatever they could. They trained civilians to charge the attackers with bamboo spears . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps

And that's the real issue behind the atomic bomb question. Yes, the atomic bombings were horrible and killed lots of Japanese civilians. But way more JAPANESE CIVILIANS would have been killed in the invasion. In the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese went as far as to use Okinawa's civilians as human shields. They encouraged other civilians to commit mass suicide. Some estimates say that 1/3 of Okinawa's civilian population was killed in the invasion. Now imagine that happening in mainland Japan.The Kamikaze-program effectively ended with the Okinawa operation. There were no attempts to resurrect it for the mainland invasion. But if you have any info on a another Kamikaze-campaign that the Japanese were about launch, please do show me.

I also think it's a little strange considering how little opposition there was in the end on the mainland of Japan. Yes, the emperor read out the surrender but should that have been such a big factor if they really were to be as fanatical as you say? IMO the point can equally be made that the Japanese were more then ready to surrender and that regardless of what the emperor said on the radio the war was already over in the minds of the average Japanese, the civilians and soldiers.

I suppose Americans will to the end of time keep the spectre of Japanese civilians poking US G.I.'s to death with bamboo sticks alive making it absolutely necessary to drop not just one but two nuclear weapons on civilian targets. This type of logic has subsequently made it easier for the US to do things like the napalm bombings in the Korean and Vietnam war, the bombings of civilian targets in the Vietnam war and the general conducting of bombing campaigns against civilian targets.

[Max2147]

The Kamikaze-program effectively ended with the Okinawa operation. There were no attempts to resurrect it for the mainland invasion. But if you have any info on a another Kamikaze-campaign that the Japanese were about launch, please do show me.
Since you used Wikipedia as a legit source earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Kamikaze

"The Japanese defense relied heavily on kamikaze planes. In addition to fighters and bombers, they reassigned almost all of their trainers for the mission, trying to make up in quantity what they lacked in quality. Their army and navy had more than 10,000 aircraft ready for use in July."

"The Japanese estimated that the planes would sink more than 400 ships; since they were training the pilots to target transports rather than carriers and destroyers, the casualties would be disproportionately greater than at Okinawa. One staff study estimated that the kamikazes could destroy a third to a half of the invasion force before its landings."

I also think it's a little strange considering how little opposition there was in the end on the mainland of Japan. Yes, the emperor read out the surrender but should that have been such a big factor if they really were to be as fanatical as you say? IMO the point can equally be made that the Japanese were more then ready to surrender and that regardless of what the emperor said on the radio the war was already over in the minds of the average Japanese, the civilians and soldiers.
I'm not sure you quite understand the Japanese mentality in the war. The Japanese people were prepared to do anything for the Emperor. If the Emperor hadn't given a surrender order, they would have kept fighting to the death.

[/quote]I suppose Americans will to the end of time keep the spectre of Japanese civilians poking US G.I.'s to death with bamboo sticks alive making it absolutely necessary to drop not just one but two nuclear weapons on civilian targets.[/quote]
My point wasn't that the Japanese civilians posed a threat to the American soldiers - the million plus Japanese soldiers in well-prepared defenses with the advantages of terrain would have done that. My point about the Japanese civilians was to point out that a lot of them would have died in the invasion.

Yes, the atomic bombings were awful. But consider it this way:

Atomic bombing: Kills no American soldiers, a few Japanese soldiers, and about 300,000 Japanese civilians.

American blockade: Kills some American soldiers (mostly sailors), kills some Japanese soldiers, kills millions of Japanese civilians through starvation.

American invasion: Kills lots of American soldiers, even more Japanese soldiers, and millions of Japanese civilians.

By advocating an invasion, you're not only advocating more American deaths, but also more Japanese soldier deaths, and even more Japanese civilian deaths.

So do you still think the invasion was the way to go?

[Aramike]

Oh ok, only American military lives matter, Japanese civilian lives are worth less. Yes, in a war of aggression perpetuated by the Japanese's imperialistic ambitions, American lives mean more. In a war of two sides, it's smart to value those on your side.What do you mean terrorists don't openly engage? Organisations referred to as terrorist organisations almost always release a declaration of war against their enemy. There is no rule of war that says that one should "openly engage" the enemy in any way. Umm, do you not know what an "engagement" is? A declaration of war is hardly engaging the enemy.

And considering how interested you seem to be in the "rules of war", there's no rule of war stating that bombing a nation into submission is not acceptable.Well isn't that kind of what makes the whole thing morally questinable? What you call terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war, the US would have had the option of using traditional military force or the nukes, and they chose nukes.The US had the option to spare US lives in order to win a war that they didn't start, and you find that morally objectionable?

Silly. But it's not suprising, coming from a traditional leftist.So what you are saying is that "terrorism" is just a concept, a word used to demonize a particular group. State terrorism is another concept, used to describe states that use terror methods.When the word "terrorism" is used, it is commonly referring to those entities who solely use acts terror to achieve limited political objectives. It's absurd that people wish to broaden an understood meaning of something to make a silly political statement, but alas ...

Would the Japanese be terrorists then, considering their activities in China? Where's that thread?

The US was indeed using terror as a method to win the war. In doing so, American lives and many Japanese lives were spared.

[Max2147]

Silly. But it's not suprising, coming from a traditional leftist.
Please no! I consider myself to be a leftist, and I don't agree with this guy on anything! I'm not sure what he is, but he's certainly not a traditional leftist.

[Raptor1]

I also think it's a little strange considering how little opposition there was in the end on the mainland of Japan. Yes, the emperor read out the surrender but should that have been such a big factor if they really were to be as fanatical as you say? IMO the point can equally be made that the Japanese were more then ready to surrender and that regardless of what the emperor said on the radio the war was already over in the minds of the average Japanese, the civilians and soldiers.

I suppose Americans will to the end of time keep the spectre of Japanese civilians poking US G.I.'s to death with bamboo sticks alive making it absolutely necessary to drop not just one but two nuclear weapons on civilian targets. This type of logic has subsequently made it easier for the US to do things like the napalm bombings in the Korean and Vietnam war, the bombings of civilian targets in the Vietnam war and the general conducting of bombing campaigns against civilian targets.

Well, considering that the military did stage a coup the night before the Rescript was read out and seized the Imperial Palace, I would say there was resistance from at least some in the military

As for the civilians, they consider the emperor divine, if the emperor tells them to resist invasion at all costs, they will do so (They did so at Okinawa), and if the emperor tells them to surrender, they'll do that

I think the notion of Japanese civilians poking troops with sticks would indeed be wrong, because the general mobilization order pretty much called for whoever can hold a stick to be drafted into the homeland army, thus removing them of the civilian list

[Aramike]

Please no! I consider myself to be a leftist, and I don't agree with this guy on anything! I'm not sure what he is, but he's certainly not a traditional leftist.My mistake. He is certainly more on the fringe. I apologize.

[OneToughHerring]

Since you used Wikipedia as a legit source earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Kamikaze

"The Japanese defense relied heavily on kamikaze planes. In addition to fighters and bombers, they reassigned almost all of their trainers for the mission, trying to make up in quantity what they lacked in quality. Their army and navy had more than 10,000 aircraft ready for use in July."

"The Japanese estimated that the planes would sink more than 400 ships; since they were training the pilots to target transports rather than carriers and destroyers, the casualties would be disproportionately greater than at Okinawa. One staff study estimated that the kamikazes could destroy a third to a half of the invasion force before its landings."

Source is a pro-nukes book so I'll consider that a contentious source.

It would have taken a lot more to actually launch the operation than just a certain amount of planes on the ground. The Kamikazes in the Okinawa-operation were mostly volunteers meaning the fighter pilot ranks were already depleted from the volunteer Kamikazes. And the success rate of the Kamikazes had dropped considerably once the Americans knew to expect them.

Given this starting point it means that the Japanese couldn't expect much if any success. Maybe a few sunken boats but probably very little US casualties. And given the fact that the rest of the allied were ready to lend a hand in the form of more boats, there would have been all the material and also men needed.

I also don't think the war at land would have really been much of a problem for the allied. At that point it would have been a question of when the surrender would have been declared, and IMO it wouldn't have necessarily taken long at all.

But instead the US decided to use nuclear bombs against two civilian targets. Nuclear weapons, the feared weapons of today. Used against civilian targets. Not once but twice. By the Americans.

Think about it.

I'm not sure you quite understand the Japanese mentality in the war. The Japanese people were prepared to do anything for the Emperor. If the Emperor hadn't given a surrender order, they would have kept fighting to the death.

I understand that the Japanese did fight fanatically in the early to middle part of the conflict. Although the US often seem to forget that there were also Japanese surrendering rendering the image of the "never surrendering Japs" somewhat not true.

The negotiations that I mentioned were offered by the Japanese but were never followed up by the Americans, let alone exhausted. Yes there was a will to continue the fighting from the clique around Hirohito and he either didn't do enough or wasn't able to do enough to get a proper peace talks going early enough.


My point wasn't that the Japanese civilians posed a threat to the American soldiers - the million plus Japanese soldiers in well-prepared defenses with the advantages of terrain would have done that. My point about the Japanese civilians was to point out that a lot of them would have died in the invasion.

Yes, the atomic bombings were awful. But consider it this way:

Atomic bombing: Kills no American soldiers, a few Japanese soldiers, and about 300,000 Japanese civilians.

American blockade: Kills some American soldiers (mostly sailors), kills some Japanese soldiers, kills millions of Japanese civilians through starvation.

American invasion: Kills lots of American soldiers, even more Japanese soldiers, and millions of Japanese civilians.

By advocating an invasion, you're not only advocating more American deaths, but also more Japanese soldier deaths, and even more Japanese civilian deaths.

So do you still think the invasion was the way to go?

IMO it's all speculation, which it is. We have to look at what actually happened and go from there. The decision to bomb two civilian targets with nuclear weapons in my mind is a war crime. If it happened today it would be a war crime.

Even if the subsequent taking of the mainland Japan would have resulted in more military & civilian deaths than the number of civilian deaths from the nuclear bombs, it would still have been a more moral and just thing to do. Yes I understand the inherent conflict in that statement but let's use the 9/11 - incident and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an example. Going by pure numbers the incident pales in comparison to what has happened in the wars. Does that mean in your opinion the Americans are way wrong with the wars?

Also comparing to 9/11, the nuclear bombings caused the equivalent of 100 9/11's worth of deaths. Worth a thought.

[OneToughHerring]

Yes, in a war of aggression perpetuated by the Japanese's imperialistic ambitions, American lives mean more. In a war of two sides, it's smart to value those on your side.Umm, do you not know what an "engagement" is? A declaration of war is hardly engaging the enemy.

Yes I understand the inherent racism of US foreign politics. And how were the Americans "engaging" the enemy but nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And considering how interested you seem to be in the "rules of war", there's no rule of war stating that bombing a nation into submission is not acceptable.The US had the option to spare US lives in order to win a war that they didn't start, and you find that morally objectionable?

If you don't follow any moral rules then don't expect others to do so either. It's that simple, Americans are still the ones who have killed the most civilians since the end of WW 2.

The US was indeed using terror as a method to win the war. In doing so, American lives and many Japanese lives were spared.

Ok, so terrorism is a positive concept. We've learned something here today. :)

[OneToughHerring]

Well, considering that the military did stage a coup the night before the Rescript was read out and seized the Imperial Palace, I would say there was resistance from at least some in the military

Well that only underlines the importance of negotiations, and also the need to separate the military from the highest command, something I'd like to see happen in present day US as well.

As for the civilians, they consider the emperor divine, if the emperor tells them to resist invasion at all costs, they will do so (They did so at Okinawa), and if the emperor tells them to surrender, they'll do that

I think the notion of Japanese civilians poking troops with sticks would indeed be wrong, because the general mobilization order pretty much called for whoever can hold a stick to be drafted into the homeland army, thus removing them of the civilian list

Yes but had the negotiations been exhausted earlier the surrender might have been secured without such a deliberate loss of civilian lives.

[Aramike]

Yes I understand the inherent racism of US foreign politics. Self-interest is not racism, and its foolish to suggest such. Furthermore it is naive to believe that the policies of any nation aren't focused on their self-interest.And how were the Americans "engaging" the enemy but nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Dropping nukes certainly isn't directly engaging the enemy - never said it was. But, the US was indeed directly engaged in conflict with Japan. That's what I said.

Nice albeit feeble try.If you don't follow any moral rules then don't expect others to do so either. It's that simple, Americans are still the ones who have killed the most civilians since the end of WW 2. Aren't you reversing your own logic? Didn't the Japanese kill thousands and thousands in China and Korea PRIOR to World War II? So then, by your logic, dropping nuclear weapons (which occurs during World War II) would simply be roundabout.

I guess we all must have stepped into our time machine.Ok, so terrorism is a positive concept. We've learned something here today.The concept (which clearly is over your head) is that "terror" and "terrorism" aren't exactly the same thing beyond semantics.

[Max2147]

IMO it's all speculation, which it is. We have to look at what actually happened and go from there. The decision to bomb two civilian targets with nuclear weapons in my mind is a war crime. If it happened today it would be a war crime.

Even if the subsequent taking of the mainland Japan would have resulted in more military & civilian deaths than the number of civilian deaths from the nuclear bombs, it would still have been a more moral and just thing to do. Yes I understand the inherent conflict in that statement but let's use the 9/11 - incident and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an example. Going by pure numbers the incident pales in comparison to what has happened in the wars. Does that mean in your opinion the Americans are way wrong with the wars?

Also comparing to 9/11, the nuclear bombings caused the equivalent of 100 9/11's worth of deaths. Worth a thought.
So you dismiss any arguments you disagree with as "speculation"?

Show me one article from a reputable source that says that fewer Japanese civilians would have been killed in an American invasion of Japan than were killed in the atomic bombings.

Take a look at what happened on Okinawa. That battle was horrific for the Americans, for the Japanese, and for the civilians on the island. Why do you insist that it would have been a good idea to repeat that on a much bigger scale?

You can't just dismiss Okinawa and say "oh, it would have been different on mainland Japan." If anything it would have been worse, with the Japanese population fighting for their homeland. The Japanese already knew the war was lost when Okinawa happened, but they still fought like mad and were willing to fight to almost the last man.

Yes, using atomic weapons was awful. But war is awful. There wasn't a clean way out of our predicament in 1945. The atomic option was the least awful choice we had.

As far as your 9/11 stuff, you should change your name to 'OneToughRedHerring'

[Aramike]

As far as your 9/11 stuff, you should change your name to 'OneToughRedHerring' :yep::rock:

People of OT(R)H's mindset refuse to accept that sometimes bad things need to happen in order to prevent worse from happening. Then, they go on to hypocritically find fault in those who are ideologically seperated from them, while ignoring the trespasses of those who they see as victims of aforementioned ideology.

In other words, because Nation A believes in something opposed to his viewpoint, any actions against Nation B must be wrong, despite the behaviors of Nation B.

Futhermore, essentially employing a long-winded way of saying "killing civilians bad" (which we all agree with) means little. What OTH's ilk doesn't understand that "bad things" can sometimes prevent "worse things".

[Jimbuna]

So you dismiss any arguments you disagree with as "speculation"?

Show me one article from a reputable source that says that fewer Japanese civilians would have been killed in an American invasion of Japan than were killed in the atomic bombings.

Take a look at what happened on Okinawa. That battle was horrific for the Americans, for the Japanese, and for the civilians on the island. Why do you insist that it would have been a good idea to repeat that on a much bigger scale?

You can't just dismiss Okinawa and say "oh, it would have been different on mainland Japan." If anything it would have been worse, with the Japanese population fighting for their homeland. The Japanese already knew the war was lost when Okinawa happened, but they still fought like mad and were willing to fight to almost the last man.

Yes, using atomic weapons was awful. But war is awful. There wasn't a clean way out of our predicament in 1945. The atomic option was the least awful choice we had.

As far as your 9/11 stuff, you should change your name to 'OneToughRedHerring'

Wery well put :up: