American in Hiroshima...

[Enkidu22]

Well the truth is we will never know what US politics were really thinking, or if Japan would surrender if they didn't use A-bomb and negociate instead. It's a very hard subject and there aren't any hard evidences for either of our teories, which means we will just stick to our opinions.

But my opinion is: US just didn't try to end war without killing innocent people. They didn't care that Japan would never agree to put Hirohito on trial, they preffered to just force them with carpet bombing and A-bomb, killing hundreds of thousands civilians and burning cities to the ground. They didn't try to negociate nor try to understand japanese mentality and beliefs. They simply wanted to make Hirohito an asian Hitler and sentence him in show-off trial. If Swiss diplomats in Japan didn't started to negociate on their own it's possible that war would end a lot later.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

Same after the second one. Japanese government first debated capitulation on 22 july so before the A-bombs. They agreed when Truman accepted their demands to leave Hirohito alone and let him keep his throne, and it was all thanks to the Swiss ambasador who negociated with japanese government and convinced Truman that's it's the only way. US politics just didn't care, they would just bomb Japan back to the stone age rather than negociate.

That's not quite correct. Truman didn't need convincing to leave the Emperor in power, it was the plan all along. General MacArthur, who was put in charge of post-war Japan, and General Marshall both felt it was the right course of action and planned on doing that all along. However, WW1's Treaty of Versailles, and the separate negotiated peace agreements after WW1 led the Allies in WW2 to make an agreement that they would settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender from the Axis this time.

Some Japanese diplomats then sent 3 "feelers" out to see if the US would accept a conditional surrender. There is no evidence that these feelers were serious about the offers, or if they were just trying to gauge US commitment to the war. They were making massive preparations to defend Kyushu, hording bombs, planes, guns, etc, and digging fortifications, training millions of civilians how to commit suicide bombs and fight with sticks and spears, etc. Why do all of that if they were truly on the verge of surrender? That makes no sense.

Also, the notion that the US didn't want Russia to invade Japanese holdings makes little sense considering the US lobbied strongly for Russia to declare war on Japan and join the battle, in order to take care of the massive Japanese army in Korea and Manchuria while the US invaded the main islands. In fact, Sec of War Stimson devised a 1-2-3 plan to greatly demoralize the Japanese and hopefully get them to surrender without having to resort to a bloody invasion...

step 1: Hiroshima
step 2: Soviets declare war on Japan
step 3: Nagasaki (if necessary)

They refused to surrender even after steps 1 and 2... again, if they were so very close to surrendering anyway, why not surrender at that point? But they refused. So step 3 was Nagasaki, and it very nearly wasn't enough either. Many Japanese were shocked when word of the surrender came, and some Japanese even committed suicide over the dishonor. Many feared what life would be like, since the Japanese treated the Chinese and POWs who surrendered very badly.

One more point about the cost of a "short invasion", followed by the A-bombs if it didn't go well. The Japanese constantly threatened to execute all POWs and foreign civilians the day their homeland was invaded. The total number of such people were several hundred thousand, possibly as many as 450,000 according to 1 estimate, but at least 300,000. The Japanese were not known for idle threats, so if they were truthful about that, even 1 day of an invasion would have ended up costing far more lives than were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

Well the truth is we will never know what US politics were really thinking, or if Japan would surrender if they didn't use A-bomb and negociate instead. It's a very hard subject and there aren't any hard evidences for either of our teories, which means we will just stick to our opinions.

But my opinion is: US just didn't try to end war without killing innocent people. They didn't care that Japan would never agree to put Hirohito on trial, they preffered to just force them with carpet bombing and A-bomb, killing hundreds of thousands civilians and burning cities to the ground. They didn't try to negociate nor try to understand japanese mentality and beliefs. They simply wanted to make Hirohito an asian Hitler and sentence him in show-off trial. If Swiss diplomats in Japan didn't started to negociate on their own it's possible that war would end a lot later.

There were never any plans to put Hirohito on trial. First, he was just a figurehead... Tojo was the one really in charge, along with the generals and admirals. All of the anti-Japanese propaganda in the US centered on Tojo, not Hirohito. Second, it was felt leaving the Emperor as a figurehead would keep the populace calmer, and maybe he could even be convinced to go along with some of the rebuilding efforts and such.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

But my opinion is: US just didn't try to end war without killing innocent people. They didn't care that Japan would never agree to put Hirohito on trial, they preffered to just force them with carpet bombing and A-bomb, killing hundreds of thousands civilians and burning cities to the ground. They didn't try to negociate nor try to understand japanese mentality and beliefs. They simply wanted to make Hirohito an asian Hitler and sentence him in show-off trial. If Swiss diplomats in Japan didn't started to negociate on their own it's possible that war would end a lot later.

It worries me a little that you think any civilized and sane modern leader would even choose the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians over accepting surrender. As Samurai said, they were not trying to make the emperor the bad guy. Imagine how the post-war rebuilding would have gone if they had. It would be like Iraq now...suicide bombers, complete social unrest, progress impossible.

[samurai007]

Something else to consider... there was a very real possibility of the Soviets taking a lot of ground very quickly once they mobilized. Possibly Tokyo would have become a divided city like Berlin, and all of northern Honshu and Hokkaidu controlled by the Soviets and trapped behind the iron curtain for 40-50 years. 171 people died trying to cross the Berlin wall, many more died trying to escape across other parts of the border, and millions suffered under Communist rule for decades. North Korea continues to suffer even today.

Had Japan been divided between the US and Russia, I don't think it would be nearly as prosperous or vibrant as it is today. Decades of oppression and starvation in the north would have prevented all the brilliant and successful Japanese who were born there from ever achieving what they were able to do in a free Japan. How many inventors, artists, businessmen, and leaders were born in the northern half of Japan, and could Japan have succeeded as it has, become the country it is today, without them? For that matter, how many such people had the misfortune of being born in North Korea in the last 50 years, and either starved, killed, or were never given the opportunity to make vital contributions to the world? What would Korea be like today had it been a united, free, whole country for the past 50 years?

[MMM]

The soldiers in Iraq, at least the one I talked to, isn't getting resupplied every day. Thankfully he knew what a pomegranite was, and he the the rest of his platoon lived on pomegranites for a week. If they hadn't they might have starved.

Just pointing out there are all kinds of experiences.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

This is exactley what I am talking about. Yeah, 'imagine'. Who gives a fuck. Put some damn balls on, MMM. It would have been damn hell. So what. That is what war is. Takeing the easy way out and just burning cities to the ground is shockingly cowardly.

Right. In order to save lives (part of a soldier's job) they didn't demonize the god the Japanse believed in, and worked with him to stabalize the country. As missions go, I would say that one went pretty well.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I dont understand your next post, explain again.

IMAGINE what a mess it would have been during the occupation and rebuilding of Japan if America had demonized, arrested, imprisoned the Emperor. During that time he was literally considered a god by many Japanese, and to have done so would have put the Japanese against the Americans working to get Japan back on its feet, stifling the recovery.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

MMM, I dont think so, not in my case. You people are analyzeing a situation, you are useing statistics and figures to deal with peoples lives. Here Samurai (she?) is telling me what a soldiers greatest greatest ability is, when I am not sure, but I suspect Samurai is never been a soldier, and I have, and am now full time martial artist who practices better ways to kill people all day long, and she is trying to tell me what my greatest strength is. Charts and math might be great and all, but when all is said, I am the one who is going to be dealing in bodies and corpses. I kinda hoped seeing the pictures would help her understand what I deal with. They are just a tad different than the numbers she is working in.

Samurai,

This is only true for American soldiers. The massive amounts of casualties the US causes in a war is in the numbers considered grossly unacceptable by the ADF (Australian Defence Force). US marines have a nack for causeing massive destruction. The method they use to invade is part of this reason. The US Infantry resupplies every day, most armies only resup every 3 days. This means the US keeps firepower close to its Infantry protecting its resup. The marines use in 1 day the ammo I use in 3. If they get in trouble they dont try and out smart like the aussies do, they just blow the fuck out of it. Like I said, these are not honorable people. Australia lacks the numbers, but if it were Australian divisions that took Japan, the statistics used would have been a lot different. Anyway, this is not my point. The US gave up, and took the easy way out. I dont think saveing the lives of civilians has ever been the goal of the US, their tactics prove that. Fighting with a bullet and knife would have been the honorable choice. A soldier can choose his victims, even if an american soldier chooses not to. Om, why do I say the same things twice. It is because it is so basic, but you are so blind. I want you to say it, it is true, this is the way you think, so just say it: "It is okay that some innocent children die here and there, and some innocent men and women, it is okay that they die, so long as the war runs smoother there after". Just say it. That is what all your facts and history evidence is saying anyway. Admit that and I will leave you alone. I dont want to humiliate you, I just want you to acknowledge who you are.

Well, maybe they didnt physically lay their hands on them, but the running and burning part is true.

You overstep your boundary a bit here. If your motive is to protect others, you will be able to kneel and take the tumble for this cause. Selflessness is kneeling. Something the US is lacking. Majority of their soldiers would rather kill the enemy civilians than risk looseing their own life. That is why so many are dead in Iraq (civilians), because when insurgeants put up a good fight and the soldiers are at risk, they just bomb the buildings killing civilians too. The honorable thing would have been to approach on foot, hook in and kill them by hand. It is greater risk, but the innocent people would still be alive. The government has also proved it is not willing to endure financial hardship or anything for the sake of others, they are just as selfish. And kneeling to Hitler is not what I meant.

Anyway, just say it: "It is okay that some innocent children die here and there, and some innocent men and women, it is okay that they die, so long as the war runs smoother there after". If you understand what you are supporting then I will leave you be, if you dont agree that the above is your thoughts, explain why not.

You either don't know as much as you think you do, or you're just trying to be offensive. The soldiers in Iraq are not blowing up civilians wholesale. Most of the civilian casualties there are because:

a) the insurgents/terrorists, many of them foreigners, are targeting and killing any civilians thought to be working with the Americans

b) the insurgents/terrorists disguise themselves as civilians, fire at soldiers from schools, hospitals, and houses, and use the real civilians as human shields

c) many of the dead "civilians" are in fact insurgent/terrorists in civilian garb

d) tragic accidents and people caught in the crossfire.

I have friends in Iraq, I know some of what's going on there, and they are doing everything they can to minimize civilian casualties and win over the citizens of Iraq, even when it is more dangerous for the soldiers.

As for my point, I think I've been pretty clear, but you seem to have missed it. I'll rephrase your statement, which was wrong, to what I have been saying:

"It is regrettable and sad that so many innocent men, women, and children had to die before WW2 finally ended, but given a choice between probably millions (many of them innocent civilians) dying in a land invasion and a few hundred thousand dying in the 2 atomic bombs to end the war months sooner than it otherwise would have, I feel Truman made the right choice in choosing to use the bombs. Personally, I don't believe the Japanese were serious about surrendering before the 2 bombs and Russia's declaration of war, but a few more efforts to feel them out and make clear that the Emperor would not be killed might have been a wise move. However, it is my firm belief that Japan would have continued to fight at least until the US took Kyushu, and that many, MANY more people, both US and Japanese, soldier and civilian, would have died had the bombs not been used." Is that clear enough?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

Initially the thoughts are 100,000 vs. 500,000. End the war in a week, or stretch it out over three months. Zero American deaths vs. Massive American deaths. Every number. Every statistic. Every estimate. Every strategy points at using the bomb.

How could a President, whose job as the top military leader is to protect his country and protect his soldiers choose a strategy which took 1) More time, 2) More human loss of life 3) More civilian loss of life and 4) more American soldier loss of life? How could he turn to his country and say "We have a way that will end this war tomorrow, and protect our troops and our country, but instead, I am going to put our boys on the ground, in the most dangerous form of combat in war."? He would have been impeached, if not worse, in days.

Just thought i'd answer to this then leave it... The only statistics that pointed to using the bomb were the EXTREEME ones...

--A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.
--A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.
When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

So you see, some if not most of the figures are nowhere near the 500,000.
A lot of people in the office believe that Truman had a hatdred towards the japanese and had a motive to drop the bombs.
Here's a quote that was said by him about the japanese.

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true."

According to Truman, the japanese were beasts...

As for the things you pointed out

1) MAYBE it would have taken more time... You don't know how quickly the Japanese would have chosen to surrender after the news of the Soviets... And you're probably gonna say why didnt they surrender after the first bomb... I can ask why didn't they give it time? 2 A-bombs in a couple of days!!! Thats just discusting!!
2)Again, this is debatable depending on which figure's were more accurate!
3)This is DEFINATELY not true, thus the main reason why i am against this. Hiro and Naga cost 200,000 lives in the space of a couple of days... the majority of these were civilians. And on top of that. 100,000 more civilians died due to radiation or affects of the a-bombs.
4)This is definately true, but at least the people that would have died knew that there was that risk.

I'd also like to say i am against it because its the biggest "terrorist" attack this world has ever seen... And i'm sure, in your defence you will say the US was in a "legitimate war", but targeting non-combatants, women, children,the elderly etc appears contrary to notions of ‘legitimate war" -definately took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you don't agree with that, would you consider an attack on Washington with an A-bomb by Iraq to be part of this legitimate war? If you believe that is fine, then i will shut my mouth. But personally, i would definately think its a terrorist attack as the majority of people in Washington are civilians!!!


I guess we'll leave it at that... it seems that we won't change eachothers minds. lol
It was educational though...