That number makes more sense, thanks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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/Matsush...l_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.

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.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...tacks_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.

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.

Since you used Wikipedia as a legit source earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...nfall#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'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?

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.

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?

Silly. But it's not suprising, coming from a traditional leftist.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.

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.

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

My mistake. He is certainly more on the fringe. I apologize.