Political Crossfire Forums

[Holy Hand Grenade]

The point of contention for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was that they wanted their Emperor to remain sacrosanct and unpunishable.
That was their one and only condition. Turning 1 city into radioactive ruins to proove your power and that you aren't afraid of using it, fine. But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.
It did not warrant the obliteration of an entire city.

[superskippy]

Quote: But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.

Japan still had very much fight left in it and it wasnt until Nagasaki that the rest of the military finally fractured and the bulk fell in line with surrendering as the Emperor has wished. However even unto the final day before Japans surrender a military inssurection occured as an attempt to prevent the surrender.

The Japanese without Nagasaki to prove that the atom bombs could be used against them again and that Japan would burn if they continued to fight.

Hiroshima was the left hook, Nagasaki was the knock out punch.

[NAB]

ATrow wrote: superskippy wrote: You mean 100,000 correct?

Nope over 1 million.

I believe you've got that number wrong, unless you are possibly referring to the entire war. The firebombings of Tokyo typically refer to the ones in mid-May of 1945, where the approximate deaths range from 85,000 to upwards of 120,000. Not saying it was a nice event, just that the million number is appoximately 10 times to high.

[Melcar]

Holy Hand Grenade wrote: The point of contention for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was that they wanted their Emperor to remain sacrosanct and unpunishable.
That was their one and only condition. Turning 1 city into radioactive ruins to proove your power and that you aren't afraid of using it, fine. But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.
It did not warrant the obliteration of an entire city.

Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

[Wyatt Earp]

Quote: Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

Huh? I want a good link to this one, what I always read / was told that the Japanese, were still at fighting force on the mainland.

[NAB]

Melcar wrote: Holy Hand Grenade wrote: The point of contention for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was that they wanted their Emperor to remain sacrosanct and unpunishable.
That was their one and only condition. Turning 1 city into radioactive ruins to proove your power and that you aren't afraid of using it, fine. But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.
It did not warrant the obliteration of an entire city.

Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

I pretty much agree with you on that post. They were on the brink of surrendering, but it wasn't a done deal. I'm sure it's quite possible that the US dropped the second bomb for a multitude of reasons
-Force Japan into complete surrender
-Impunity/Revenge (see above)
-Make a "statement" to the Soviets and others
-Working bomb was in the theater and it wasn't going to gather dust.

The one problem I've always had with the second guessing of this decision is that we are doing it from the comfort of our "modern" era. This decision was done in a different time, after years of war, and contempt/disregard for the lives of the enemy was pretty high. Life had become rather cheap in that part of the Pacific.

Also, from what I remember reading, Kokura was the original target (military industrial complex at the time), but was obscured with clouds. Nagasaki was the secondary target. I believe it wasn't possible to bring the bomb back to base, so it was a use it or lose it situation.

[superskippy]

Wyatt Earp wrote: Quote: Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

Huh? I want a good link to this one, what I always read / was told that the Japanese, were still at fighting force on the mainland.

They were they had at least 800,000 troops in Manchuria who could fight even with the Home Islands cut off.

They also had a massive force which could fight on the home islands.

[perdidochas]

Holy Hand Grenade wrote: The point of contention for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was that they wanted their Emperor to remain sacrosanct and unpunishable.
That was their one and only condition. Turning 1 city into radioactive ruins to proove your power and that you aren't afraid of using it, fine. But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.
It did not warrant the obliteration of an entire city.

That's easy to say in hindsight.

[Melcar]

NAB wrote: Melcar wrote: Holy Hand Grenade wrote: The point of contention for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was that they wanted their Emperor to remain sacrosanct and unpunishable.
That was their one and only condition. Turning 1 city into radioactive ruins to proove your power and that you aren't afraid of using it, fine. But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.
It did not warrant the obliteration of an entire city.

Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

I pretty much agree with you on that post. They were on the brink of surrendering, but it wasn't a done deal. I'm sure it's quite possible that the US dropped the second bomb for a multitude of reasons
-Force Japan into complete surrender
-Impunity/Revenge (see above)
-Make a "statement" to the Soviets and others
-Working bomb was in the theater and it wasn't going to gather dust.

The one problem I've always had with the second guessing of this decision is that we are doing it from the comfort of our "modern" era. This decision was done in a different time, after years of war, and contempt/disregard for the lives of the enemy was pretty high. Life had become rather cheap in that part of the Pacific.

Also, from what I remember reading, Kokura was the original target (military industrial complex at the time), but was obscured with clouds. Nagasaki was the secondary target. I believe it wasn't possible to bring the bomb back to base, so it was a use it or lose it situation.

Those were some of the reasons, yes. To say that America used the A-bombs (specially a second time) just to secure Japan's surrender is simply naive. It was a race against time. The Soviets were gaining momentum; I have no doubt Stalin would not think twice about bombing Japan himself or committing his massive man power to an invasion (there was no way in hell America was going to let the Soviets take both Berlin and Tokyo). America was also tired of the constant bloodshed in the Pacific an any option to end it was a good one; there is just no way we can possibly comprehend in this day and age the amount of carnage that was taking place in the Pacific war (recent wars are nothing in comparison). Lastly, a more siniester objective was to test the new weapon.

[NAB]

Melcar wrote: NAB wrote: Melcar wrote: Holy Hand Grenade wrote: The point of contention for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was that they wanted their Emperor to remain sacrosanct and unpunishable.
That was their one and only condition. Turning 1 city into radioactive ruins to proove your power and that you aren't afraid of using it, fine. But why twice? The Japanese were on the brink of surrendering. They knew they were done for, and were just playing for as many concessions they could get.
It did not warrant the obliteration of an entire city.

Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

I pretty much agree with you on that post. They were on the brink of surrendering, but it wasn't a done deal. I'm sure it's quite possible that the US dropped the second bomb for a multitude of reasons
-Force Japan into complete surrender
-Impunity/Revenge (see above)
-Make a "statement" to the Soviets and others
-Working bomb was in the theater and it wasn't going to gather dust.

The one problem I've always had with the second guessing of this decision is that we are doing it from the comfort of our "modern" era. This decision was done in a different time, after years of war, and contempt/disregard for the lives of the enemy was pretty high. Life had become rather cheap in that part of the Pacific.

Also, from what I remember reading, Kokura was the original target (military industrial complex at the time), but was obscured with clouds. Nagasaki was the secondary target. I believe it wasn't possible to bring the bomb back to base, so it was a use it or lose it situation.

Those were some of the reasons, yes. To say that America used the A-bombs (specially a second time) just to secure Japan's surrender is simply naive. It was a race against time. The Soviets were gaining momentum; I have no doubt Stalin would not think twice about bombing Japan himself or committing his massive man power to an invasion (there was no way in hell America was going to let the Soviets take both Berlin and Tokyo). America was also tired of the constant bloodshed in the Pacific an any option to end it was a good one; there is just no way we can possibly comprehend in this day and age the amount of carnage that was taking place in the Pacific war (recent wars are nothing in comparison). Lastly, a more siniester objective was to test the new weapon.

Your point on the testing was kind of what I was implying with the weapon not being left to gather dust. So much effort had gone into the creation of it, that once it was in the theater is WAS going to be used. No matter what. It was a different time and era, and those that fought back then had no compunction about using it. There was no such thing as PC, there was no "understanding" of the enemy, and no worries about world opinion, especially what people would be saying 60 years later. My grandfather was a bomber pilot in the Pacific and even said as much. "They got what they deserved", in his own words to me. This after he lost 2 brothers to the Japanese.

It's interesting to me that this topic got posted here this week, because I was in Seoul on business two weeks ago and had this same discussion at dinner with some of my Korean clients. I was expressing a bit of my modern "regret" over the use of these weapons on the Japanese, and these guys were having none of it. From their point of view as Koreans, the Japanese needed to be TOTALLY defeated. That was the only way they were going to change their ways, especially in the way they treated their neighbors in the region. To this day, I've heard from Koreans and some Chinese how the US did the right thing and that's why Japan still respects (through fear I suppose) the US. They don't have that same respect for Korea or China, and these two countries still have lingering distrust of the Japanese. Just throwing in some things I've heard. :wink:

[JohnM]

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."
Niccolo Machiavelli

[ATrow]

superskippy wrote: Having looked it up I can count 1,000,000 for the bombings all over Japan but for Tokyo itself I find it at 100,000-120,000 can you substantiate the 1,000,000 casualties for Tokyo?

Your right. I had my figures mixed up. Thanks for straightening me out.

[Spider]

If we are to remember the lives lost in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think it is equally important that we remember the deaths during the Nanjing Massacre of 1937-38. This is where the Japanese Army massacred 260,000 civilians and prisoners of war.

We should also remember the approximately 9.13 million Chinese who were killed from 1937-1945 by the Japanese military.

Oh yeah. We should give a moment to remember the deaths caused by the diversion of resources to the Japanese military in occupied countries during WW2.

Millions of civilians in southern asia....like Vietnam and Indonesia, both of which were major rice growing countries died during a preventable famine in 1944–45 as a direct result of japanese looting of crops to feed their war effort.

But yeah. Hiroshima was bad news too.

Everyone remembers the bomb. Big and flashy. Gets headlines, etc. But the possible 30 million people who died from Japanese genocide during this period are forgotten over here. Its really to bad everyone loves to jump on that wagon. :roll:

[XiangYu]

ATrow wrote: People are always so quick to point at Hiroshima. They always forget the great firebombing of Tokyo which was responsible fore the death of over 1 million Japanese civilians. Seems to me they might be complaining about the wrong thing. I remember reading about this. Wasn't just Tokyo, it was the fire bombing of dozens of large Japanese cities that caused casualties of close to a million. Because most Japanese buildings were built from wood, they burned easily. I wondered why the Japanese didn't surrender by then? Why did it take the shock and awe of Atomic weapons to end the fight?

[micfranklin]

picket wrote: Dropping the bomb was a very bad thing. but not the worst thing.
Last I heard we estimated that it would cost half a million allied soldier's lives to invade Japan. The worst thing would have been if your daughter or son had to be the first one on the beach.
Dropping the bomb was the right move.
War is Hell ain't it.

It was war, each side was getting screwed either way. The problem was that instead of seeing a lot of corpses on the ground, many bodies were just incinerated.

[Numb]

Holy Hand Grenade wrote: Hiroshima = Can be argued as necessary. The war could have dragged on for years and lost many more lives had the Japanese not surendered.

Nagasaki = Brutal and wanton destruction, totally useless. Akin to kicking a man in the balls once he is already on the ground crying for mercy.
Nagasaki was actually a way of showing Japan that the Hiroshima bomb wasn't a one time thing and that these bombs could be manufactured to destroy the whole contry, arguably it could have been used in an unpopulated area.

[Wizard From Oz]

There is already a thread on here that deals heavily with the statistics of dropping the bombs.

First has to be remembered, even after that second bomb, the majority of the war cabinet still did not want to surrender.

When the surrender was finally accepted, there was an uprising within the officer corp to stop the Emperor from making the announcement. Fortunately it was put down.

The third ace in the hole was the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

The battle casualties for operation coronette (The second phases of the home island invasions) Suggests a combined casualty rate of a 1000 deaths per hour for the first two weeks of the attack, this does not factor in civilan casualties.

The final thought, without the twin demonstrations of terror, suffering and destruction, how eager would the world have been to go to nuclear war when the weapons were big enough to really do some damage?

[milo1047]

superskippy wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: Quote: Despite what many would say on the subject, it is well known that the Japanese were at the brink of surrendering. Rival factions within the Empire itself were starting to fight each other already. The true purpose of the A-bomb was not to simply make the Japanese surrender.

Huh? I want a good link to this one, what I always read / was told that the Japanese, were still at fighting force on the mainland.

They were they had at least 800,000 troops in Manchuria who could fight even with the Home Islands cut off.

They also had a massive force which could fight on the home islands.

Actually, the guys in Manchuria got the crap kicked out of them by the Soviets.

[superskippy]

The campaign ended before a Japanese response could be organized and they still killed some 30,000 Soviet soldiers discounting the insanly low Stalinst era claim of 9,000 in a matter of days, Japan suffered a larger loss of around 35,00-45,000. By the end of August Storm Japan was beginning to form a defensive line in Korea and small pockets in Manchuria were proving deadly for Soviet troops. Many tens of thousands more would have died before the end, as the Soviets advanced into Korea against the remaning reformed 600,000-700,000 Japanese soldiers.