Political Crossfire Forums

[Kt]

Acctually Japan was close to surrender/peace treaty with the united states when the bombs were dropped.

I would say, there would have been a nonviolent solution.

[The Comrade]

Beyond The Call of Duty wrote: If the two atomic bombs didn't end WWII, how do you think the invasion of mainland Japan would've happened?

it would have been okinawa jima and iwo jima times fifty. every single japanese man and woma nwas being told to fight. it was insane. i think america would have invaded the two islands below main land japan as a show of strength and then another atomic bomb would be tried. probably on tokyo.

[Felix]

David Kelly wrote: The invation would be bloody and if repulsed would end in Americas suing for peace. In other words if the nukes didn't work nor the invation, we would have lost the war.

Laughable.

Spider wrote: Despite this the japanese could have brought truly impressive numbers to bear against an invasion.

Not really. Japan was exhausted by August 1945. Starvation, disease and famine were rampant. Most of the Army's defense force were green conscripts, and many of them weren't even equipped with arms. General Lemay believed Japan would have surrendered before Operation Olympic would have commenced in November, simply through repeated bombing raids.

Quote: Surrender would be doubtful, in this situation, since the Japanese were perfectly well aware that if they did manage to repel an allied invasion, the likely outcome would be suing for peace.

It would have been virtually impossible for Japan to repel an invasion. Victory was a sure thing, the only question was if the Japanese would surrender before the fight to the finish. Remember, the Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, was trying to end the war back in May, but was blocked by the hawks in his cabinet.

Quote: Given the casualty figures in the european theatre, and especially in the pacific theatre to date, it was safe to assume that millions would have died, as opposed to the thousands that died when the bombs were dropped.

Speculation. No Allied casualty estimate approaches anything close to a million American deaths. The 'one million American lives saved' was a postwar myth, created mainly from an article by Henry Stimson, published in Harpers Magazine. The original casualty estimates were much, much lower.

Quote: I shudder to think about that. Japan would have been totally destroyed.

Japan's cities were pretty much wiped out by August 1945 through conventional bombings. Lemay's bombing campaign would probably have been enough to bring Japan to her knees, without the atomic bombs. However, Soviet intervention in Manchuria, would have also brought about a quick surrender without the atomic bombs, simply because the Japanese were terrified of Soviet occupation of Japan.

[David Kelly]

Felix wrote: David Kelly wrote: The invation would be bloody and if repulsed would end in Americas suing for peace. In other words if the nukes didn't work nor the invation, we would have lost the war.

Laughable.

Spider wrote: Despite this the japanese could have brought truly impressive numbers to bear against an invasion.

Not really. Japan was exhausted by August 1945. Starvation, disease and famine were rampant. Most of the Army's defense force were green conscripts, and many of them weren't even equipped with arms. General Lemay believed Japan would have surrendered before Operation Olympic would have commenced in November, simply through repeated bombing raids.

Quote: Surrender would be doubtful, in this situation, since the Japanese were perfectly well aware that if they did manage to repel an allied invasion, the likely outcome would be suing for peace.

It would have been virtually impossible for Japan to repel an invasion. Victory was a sure thing, the only question was if the Japanese would surrender before the fight to the finish. Remember, the Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, was trying to end the war back in May, but was blocked by the hawks in his cabinet.

Quote: Given the casualty figures in the european theatre, and especially in the pacific theatre to date, it was safe to assume that millions would have died, as opposed to the thousands that died when the bombs were dropped.

Speculation. No Allied casualty estimate approaches anything close to a million American deaths. The 'one million American lives saved' was a postwar myth, created mainly from an article by Henry Stimson, published in Harpers Magazine. The original casualty estimates were much, much lower.

Quote: I shudder to think about that. Japan would have been totally destroyed.

Japan's cities were pretty much wiped out by August 1945 through conventional bombings. Lemay's bombing campaign would probably have been enough to bring Japan to her knees, without the atomic bombs. However, Soviet intervention in Manchuria, would have also brought about a quick surrender without the atomic bombs, simply because the Japanese were terrified of Soviet occupation of Japan.

I have 1 thing to say to you. Stop reading the victors propaganda and look at what the real history says.

[Felix]

David Kelly wrote:
I have 1 thing to say to you. Stop reading the victors propaganda and look at what the real history says.

Victor's propaganda would be along the lines of 'if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs, then millions of Americans would have died so thank God we dropped them'.

Get your facts straight; please and thank you.

[Beyond The Call of Duty]

He does have a point the "1 Million American Lives Saved" is just an exaggeration. This was created to raise at-home-American's moral and didn't see the troubles the the people of Japan were facing and seeing how many people were saved for them.

In my opinion, I think at least 50,000-70,000 Americans would've died in the invasion of Japan, the Japanese deaths would have been possibly four times that.

[Wizard From Oz]

Well rather than bicker - here is the battle plan..... Including what Japan had in store for anyone visiting their islands.

One stark statistic points to a combined death rate of 1000 men an hour!!!

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

[Spider]

Beyond The Call of Duty wrote: He does have a point the "1 Million American Lives Saved" is just an exaggeration. This was created to raise at-home-American's moral and didn't see the troubles the the people of Japan were facing and seeing how many people were saved for them.

In my opinion, I think at least 50,000-70,000 Americans would've died in the invasion of Japan, the Japanese deaths would have been possibly four times that.


In the months prior to the bombings, the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50,000–150,000 civilian deaths, 100,000–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths and over 72,000 American casualties. An invasion of Japan was expected to result in casualties many times greater than in Okinawa.

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

Also, the death tolls caused by the two bombs were around 214,000. I stand by my assertion that a conventional invasion of Japan using the methods of WW2 would have killed multiples of this figure.

[Spider]

MG1962 wrote: Well rather than bicker - here is the battle plan..... Including what Japan had in store for anyone visiting their islands.

One stark statistic points to a combined death rate of 1000 men an hour!!!

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

That was a fascinating read. I think that says it all.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: In the months prior to the bombings, the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50,000–150,000 civilian deaths, 100,000–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths and over 72,000 American casualties. An invasion of Japan was expected to result in casualties many times greater than in Okinawa.


What makes these figure interesting - as a total, the US forces enjoyed a superiority of 5 to 1 during the battle of Okinanwa.

There is no way in the world they would have done better than 1 to 1 During the first few months of the Home Island's invasion, and depending on the ability of the civilian population it could have swung 2:1 in favour of the defenders.

[micfranklin]

I think that if two atomic bombs couldn't bring the Japanese to their senses, then they'd retaliate with every single soldier and military weapon they had and I'm very sure all of their troops were not stationed in just Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Who knows, it could've been another Pearl Harbor-type attack, only worse on the mainland.

[TwinkieDP]

Felix wrote: David Kelly wrote:
I have 1 thing to say to you. Stop reading the victors propaganda and look at what the real history says.

Victor's propaganda would be along the lines of 'if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs, then millions of Americans would have died so thank God we dropped them'.

Get your facts straight; please and thank you. :lol:
David got Pwned...

[TwinkieDP]

micfranklin wrote: I think that if two atomic bombs couldn't bring the Japanese to their senses, then they'd retaliate with every single soldier and military weapon they had and I'm very sure all of their troops were not stationed in just Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Who knows, it could've been another Pearl Harbor-type attack, only worse on the mainland. What?! Defending their homeland from an invasion would be like a Pearl Harbor attack?

[micfranklin]

TwinkieDP wrote: micfranklin wrote: I think that if two atomic bombs couldn't bring the Japanese to their senses, then they'd retaliate with every single soldier and military weapon they had and I'm very sure all of their troops were not stationed in just Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Who knows, it could've been another Pearl Harbor-type attack, only worse on the mainland. What?! Defending their homeland from an invasion would be like a Pearl Harbor attack?

No, the fact that Japan would be once again attacking the US.

[.locke.]

the fact is that the allies would have won. one way or another. they wouold have won. with a combined Russian American British and the many other countries that were part of the allies, they would have won. and if that wouldve meant dropping another atomic bomb.. it woulve happened. though the results would have been extremely messy. the WORLD VS japan isnt looking very good for japan. suicidal or not they would have lost.

[David Kelly]

TwinkieDP wrote: Felix wrote: David Kelly wrote:
I have 1 thing to say to you. Stop reading the victors propaganda and look at what the real history says.

Victor's propaganda would be along the lines of 'if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs, then millions of Americans would have died so thank God we dropped them'.

Get your facts straight; please and thank you. :lol:
David got Pwned...

Realy? All I see is you suuporting someone that missed the part ware I said if.

[superskippy]

Without the atom bombs the war would have lasted several more months perhaps dragging into 1946, the Japenese while they may have shown some signs or willingness to negotiate on some governmental levels, it is foolish to beleive that they would have up and surrendered without some other form of decisive action, and it is foolish to beleive that the US would have accepted anything less than total surrender and occupation.

Japan still had at least 800,000 troops that could supply themselves and were well organized in Manchuria and ample supplies of artillary and high calibre rounds to mount an effective resistance. They were the troops that were crushed in the surprise offensive by the Soviet Army, the fight was short because of the suprise intensity and the war was already near it's end when the ceasefire was declared and they surrendered. But even so some 24,000 Soviet soldiers fell dead in the onslaught another 48,000 were wounded. This against a foe that was supposed to be depleted, the Japenese suffered some 50,000 killed in the campaign. Make no mistake Japan and the means to continue the fight even in it's mainland forces.

With this example alone it should be clear the Japan had both the means and the will to carry on a fight at least for some more favorable terms, something less than total surrender which they need not subscribe to without invasion. A continuing bloody war to the finish would be the inevitable outcome to the failing of the Atomic Bombs. Allied victory is assured in the end.

[cap'n queasy]

MG1962 wrote: Well rather than bicker - here is the battle plan..... Including what Japan had in store for anyone visiting their islands.

One stark statistic points to a combined death rate of 1000 men an hour!!!

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

Cool link. Thanks.

[eynon]

superskippy wrote: Without the atom bombs the war would have lasted several more months perhaps dragging into 1946, the Japenese while they may have shown some signs or willingness to negotiate on some governmental levels, it is foolish to beleive that they would have up and surrendered without some other form of decisive action, and it is foolish to beleive that the US would have accepted anything less than total surrender and occupation.

Japan still had at least 800,000 troops that could supply themselves and were well organized in Manchuria and ample supplies of artillary and high calibre rounds to mount an effective resistance. They were the troops that were crushed in the surprise offensive by the Soviet Army, the fight was short because of the suprise intensity and the war was already near it's end when the ceasefire was declared and they surrendered. But even so some 24,000 Soviet soldiers fell dead in the onslaught another 48,000 were wounded. This against a foe that was supposed to be depleted, the Japenese suffered some 50,000 killed in the campaign. Make no mistake Japan and the means to continue the fight even in it's mainland forces.

With this example alone it should be clear the Japan had both the means and the will to carry on a fight at least for some more favorable terms, something less than total surrender which they need not subscribe to without invasion. A continuing bloody war to the finish would be the inevitable outcome to the failing of the Atomic Bombs. Allied victory is assured in the end.

I had no idea the fighting was that intense.....the Soviet losses were greater then ours in any battle we had against Japan? I had no idea...... :-|

[Thrilla]

superskippy wrote: Without the atom bombs the war would have lasted several more months perhaps dragging into 1946, the Japenese while they may have shown some signs or willingness to negotiate on some governmental levels, it is foolish to beleive that they would have up and surrendered without some other form of decisive action, and it is foolish to beleive that the US would have accepted anything less than total surrender and occupation.

Japan still had at least 800,000 troops that could supply themselves and were well organized in Manchuria and ample supplies of artillary and high calibre rounds to mount an effective resistance. They were the troops that were crushed in the surprise offensive by the Soviet Army, the fight was short because of the suprise intensity and the war was already near it's end when the ceasefire was declared and they surrendered. But even so some 24,000 Soviet soldiers fell dead in the onslaught another 48,000 were wounded. This against a foe that was supposed to be depleted, the Japenese suffered some 50,000 killed in the campaign. Make no mistake Japan and the means to continue the fight even in it's mainland forces.

With this example alone it should be clear the Japan had both the means and the will to carry on a fight at least for some more favorable terms, something less than total surrender which they need not subscribe to without invasion. A continuing bloody war to the finish would be the inevitable outcome to the failing of the Atomic Bombs. Allied victory is assured in the end. I concur