Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

I agree with much of that. I would just say that the indoctrination of the population, and the training of civilians to resist invasion, took the form of kamikaze attacks and mass suicides/murder-suicides on Okinawa. It is one thing to train citizens to resist invasion, it is another to encourage them to blow up their families with grenades to avoid capture.

The only point to that paragraph is to show once again that the Japanese were not going to give up willingly under the terms of the Allies.

The terms of the surrender offer were set forth at the Potsdam Conference. They were pretty straight forward and on re-reading, did not mention the Emperor. The last part of the surrender demand stated that it had to be unconditional and, short of that, Japan would be annihilated.

Japan rejected this and sought conditions to the terms, such as the retention of the Emperor as head of state (basically) among others. Even after two A-bombs and Soviet invasion, the Japanese hierarchy was split on surrender. Some in the military actively resisted.

A very determined people to say the least.

BTW, I have absolutely no doubt that military leaders in the west (the US) wanted to use the bomb as soon as it was deployable. It's what they do: kill people, break things, occupy territory. They are the sharp end of the spear.

I will also say that one can tell a lot about a culture by the way they treat those they have conquered. MacArthur and the Allies treated the Japanese much better than they expected.

Splitter

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I agree with those of you saying that it seemed to be the lesser evil under those circumstances. Not a lot was known about the long lasting effects of radiation, so planners thought "invasion of Japan: 5 million dead, atomic bombs:200000 dead...ok, let's drop the bombs".

On the other hand, i can't see what more could Japan have done. They were under a very effective submarine blockade, their industry was mostly destroyed and their cities razed in a way that would make RAF's bomber command jealous (funny how the US was all about precision in the ETO, even to the detriment of their own crews' well being, but had no qualms about using the RAF style of bombing in Japan). Simply leaving them blockaded for a few more months might have done the trick.

However, this snippet here i don't see the problem with



It's what every self-respecting population does when faced with foreign occupation. Just like the elderly and teenagers fighting in the streets of the German cities during the final weeks of the war, were they all Nazis? I doubt it.

It's been so ingrained in the collective mind of the west that we are always the "good guys", that we don't only expect to win every time, but we also expect to be greeted as a godsend by the population of the countries we invade. I can't describe how much i disagree with this train of thought.

It's the duty of every able-bodied individual who wants to be free to resist foreign occupation armies on their soil, no matter if they hate their own government to an equal degree. I had a small diatribe ready on the reasons behind my opinion, but it's taking things a bit too off-topic. Having been used by both "enemies" and "allies" in our history however, there's nothing that jolts the collective subconscious in my country like the threat of a foreign occupation, wether it is overt and outright military in means, or covert and waged by means of economy, diplomacy and behind-the-doors blackmail.

Back on the topic of the A-bombs, reading from the scientists involved in the project would be an eye-opener for many. A few years ago i was reading a book by Richard Feynman, a world-reknowned physicist that was involved in the manhattan project (he was also in the comittee investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster that identified the problems that caused the fuel leak and explosion).

It wasn't a complete autobiography, more like a series of chapters from his life, but a lot of it centered around science and the moral implications regarding its application. According to this guy, most of the scientists involved in the manhattan project were believing, hoping and downright advocating to use one of the weapons for display purposes.

The idea was to arrange a meeting with a Japanese delegation, drop the first bomb on an uninhabbited atol and tell them that unless they surrender, the rest will be dropped on their cities (Japan didn't know how many bombs the US had in stock). However, the military denied it because they wanted to observe the bomb at work on a live target. That's it, straight from the horse's mouth, the people who built the bombs and asked the authorities to conduct a display drop but had their request denied.

[AndyJWest]

BTW, I have absolutely no doubt that military leaders in the west (the US) wanted to use the bomb as soon as it was deployable.

Do you bother to read other people's posts, Splitter? I've already pointed out twice that Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz (amongst many others) thought the use of the A-Bombs unnecessary. Please stop repeating what you do or don't 'doubt', and deal with the evidence. The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't.

[jameson]

Ok, I'll bite...

"The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't. "

So what? Spit out what it is you are trying to say.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by jameson

Ok, I'll bite...

"The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't. "

So what? Spit out what it is you are trying to say.

What about that don't you understand, Jameson? It seems clear enough to me.

[jameson]

It may be clear enough to you AJ, but you haven't said whether you approved or disapproved of the use of the bomb. And if you are, in this context, please state why?
Your answers imply that you do not approve but you don't actually say so. I find it hard to work out where you are coming from.
The Americans dropped two bombs on Japan and it ended the Second World War. I am curious to know and have you explain an alternative scenario, that would have concluded the war quickly, if you think that what happened should not have done. You seem to be seeking some kind of scapegoat for those events at this late date and from a position of 65 years hindsight. Either you think Trueman was a mass murderer who had no need to use the bomb, or there is some other reason not yet touched upon which would explain why he did. Which is it?

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by jameson

It may be clear enough to you AJ, but you haven't said whether you approved or disapproved of the use of the bomb. And if you are, in this context, please state why?
Your answers imply that you do not approve but you don't actually say so. I find it hard to work out where you are coming from.
The Americans dropped two bombs on Japan and it ended the Second World War. I am curious to know and have you explain an alternative scenario, that would have concluded the war quickly, if you think that what happened should not have done. You seem to be seeking some kind of scapegoat for those events at this late date and from a position of 65 years hindsight. Either you think Trueman was a mass murderer who had no need to use the bomb, or there is some other reason not yet touched upon which would explain why he did. Which is it?

I don't have to explain anything. If you can't understand my position from my postings, that's your problem, not mine. And please don't put words into my mouth. You aren't a mind reader. Actually, you barely seem to be any sort of reader at all, given that you've failed to understand what I've already written about Truman.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Do you bother to read other people's posts, Splitter? I've already pointed out twice that Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz (amongst many others) thought the use of the A-Bombs unnecessary. Please stop repeating what you do or don't 'doubt', and deal with the evidence. The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't.

Wait....didn't someone just say that to their understanding it was the military that insisted on dropping the bomb on a live target instead of making a demonstration? So....which is it?

I have no doubt (lol) that where was dissension in the military ranks when it came to obliterating thousands of people for whatever reason. But in the end, the military gave it's "ok" to the bombing.

You say they (Japanese) did not have the ability to fight on. I would say they no longer had the ability to "win". They certainly had the manpower (and civilians) to fight a long, drawn out, costly battle. They, the government, were willing to sacrifice millions of lives to bleed the Allies into giving favorable terms for surrender. "Winning" became retaining the Emperor, retaining some of their military gains, and no Allied occupation.

Or we could have starved them into submission. There were already severe food shortages. How many would have died? Wouldn't the weakest have died first?

Or we could have continued to bomb them. They had already lost something like 600,000 people on the mainland to US bombing. In another six months of intensified bombing, how may more would have been lost? Remember, all the while we are starving them too.

Sure, if we (the Allies) had acceded to Japanese demands, the Japanese would have been willing to go ahead and call it a war.

Then we probably would have had to go back and fight them again a few decades later. Our leaders at the time understood that.

Splitter

[swiss]

Sure, if we (the Allies) had acceded to Japanese demands, the Japanese would have been willing to go ahead and call it a war.

Then we probably would have had to go back and fight them again a few decades later. Our leaders at the time understood that.

You believe that?

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

You believe that?

I am not sure which part of the quote you are talking about.

The Japanese did want to end the war, but on their terms. They were putting out feelers through Russia who until the last days were "neutral" with Japan.

As for having to go back and fight them again later on...that's what usually happens when you leave the job half finished.

The way to win a war is to completely destroy the other side's way of life (harsh, huh?). If you do not destroy their mindset, they rebuild and come back again. We see this time and again through history.

We have the same debate concerning the US Civil War. A general named Sherman marched across the south cutting railways and destroying. Then he turned north and did the same thing, just not as brutally. Could the south have won the war? No. Would they ever have stopped fighting had their heart not been cut out? No.

We went to war with Iraq and left their leader in power. Then we had to go back again.

We left Germany wounded and bitter after WWI, then had to go back 20 some years later.

How many wars and battles did France and England fight? Plenty because neither could destroy the other.

The US won every major military engagement in Vietnam and lost the war because the the North was never truly conquered.

Korea is brewing again because they were never defeated and their way of life was never destroyed.

It's one of the reasons no one should EVER invade Russia lol. Their people are brave and their spirit is unconquerable.

The Empire of Japan, at the time, was starved for resources. Much like the German government, they believed themselves to be superior. Their focus was on expansion. Unless those mindsets were destroyed, they would have come back eventually and caused future problems.

That's sort of the problem with playing nicely with dictators and other people with bad intent in the world: they bide their time and come back unless you destroy their way of life and show them that their mindset is untenable.

Splitter

[jameson]

"I don't have to explain anything."

You haven't, which was my point.