American in Hiroshima...

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by MMM

Samurai007

Japan Forums has too few intelligent and educated people that can engage in discussion. I hope you are patient enough to stick around. We need more people like you.

Thanks MMM! I like these forums, and I hope to stick around for a while. My Japan information may be a bit out of date (I was last there in 1998), but I think I still have something to contribute on various topics.

[samokan]

Originally Posted by MMM

Samurai007

Japan Forums has too few intelligent and educated people that can engage in discussion. I hope you are patient enough to stick around. We need more people like you.

he sure is.. keep it coming, enjoyed reading every one of your post

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

*Spews a little*.

First, the name is Samurai007, I don't know why you keep changing the number, but just call me Samurai... it's what I usually go by, but the name was already taken on this forum when I signed up.

Second, America has an incredibly free and open society, and you can read all kinds of dissenting opinions and "America is EVIL" junk from books published right here. Sure, reading the accounts from other nations can give important perspectives... for instance, when writing my honors thesis on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I read the translated accounts from the Japanese meetings and debates going on before and after the bombs were dropped. They were quite enlightening. Many Japanese didn't believe Hiroshima was really an atomic bomb, just some new bigger firebomb. And many of the ones who did believe the US claim of having built an atomic bomb were sure they America only had 1 of them. The vote to continue the war was unanimous at that point. And even after Nagasaki, the vote was a 50/50 split. From the Japanese own account, the war ended by only the tiniest of margins, a tie-breaking vote by the Emperor. Before Nagasaki, it was unanimous to continue the war, even though by that time it was becoming very clear to outside observers that Japan would lose.

It's a terrible choice, but if you must choose either a few hundred thousand people or several million to die before the war can end, you choose the lesser number. You obviously don't know about the massive training program for civilian defenders of the homeland. 28 million Japanese men, women, and children were trained in combat and suicide bomb tactics, and were ready and willing to give their lives to defend the homeland and Emperor. If the 50,000+ civilians and 100,000+ Japanese soldiers who sacrificed their lives trying to defend Okinawa were any indication, millions more Japanese civilians and soldiers would have died in an invasion than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Military Magazine Online

Senior military leaders of the day were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion would be necessary to end the war. Those decisions were carefully considered based upon several imperatives:


• The hard-line rulers of Japan would not recognize defeat nor respond to peace overtures. Their troops would not surrender just by being overwhelmed in battle. The decrypts of intercepted messages disclosed this and the following points.

• We had learned lessons from the terrible battle of Okinawa that took place 350 miles south of Kyushu. Okinawa was defended by over 100,000 Japanese troops, and further supported by 50,000 home defense forces. Most were killed and few captured, since they fought in Samurai, Knights of Bushido tradition and refused surrender. The Okinawa invasion was comparable in size to the invasion of Normandy — 550,000 U.S. military personnel were involved and sustained more than 68,000 casualties; 34 allied ships were sunk, and 368 were damaged by 3,000 kamikaze planes. The Japanese demonstrated their willingness to fight to the last man. The Navy had more casualties in that campaign than the total sustained in all previous operations in all wars.

• In the five campaigns proceeding the contemplated invasion of Japan, the Japanese forces demonstrated that they would fight to the death in a savage resistance.

• Japan was rapidly mobilizing for all-out defense of the home islands. Their never-defeated major army was brought back from Manchuria. The entire populace was being fully mobilized and systematically prepared to fight the invasion.

• It would have been possible to bomb Japan extensively with conventional explosives and establish a naval blockade. Together, these actions would have choked the enemy to some extent, but that would not have destroyed the armies nor the will of the people to fight with ferocity for their homeland.

• Had the invasion been initiated as planned against Japan, the resulting catastrophic destruction and enormous loss of life would have destroyed their civilization. The Soviets would probably have occupied the northern half and thus developed a partitioned country as was done in Korea. The Soviets declared war on Japan on 8 August.

• Orders had been disseminated by the Japanese high command to kill all POWs, some 150,000 in Japan, plus 80,000 in other occupied Asian areas, plus interned civilians of enemy countries — a total of perhaps 450,000 — upon the initiation of an invasion attempt.

Additional evidence
Following the capitulation, captured documents and interviews of key military persons disclosed the elaborate plans that had been made by the Japanese to defend their home islands. They had 2 million regular troops ready and 25 million additional men, women and children mobilized. The awful extent of that preparation was demonstrated in the training of children to carry explosive packs and throw themselves under tanks.

Information developed later resolved that the Japanese were saving most of their aircraft, fuel and pilots in reserve for the final battle in defense of the home islands. Their plan for the defense of Japan, KETSU-GO included many underground hangers and take-off strips for the launching of massive suicide attacks using improved types of kamikaze craft, as well as conventional aircraft so used. The Japanese had accumulated a total of nearly 13,000 planes for the final defense. They were building a more effective model of the German V-1 Buzz-bomb but modified to include a suicide pilot, greatly increasing their chances of striking their target. They had also assembled suicide frogmen, small suicide boats, submarines and other forms of kamikaze deployments.

The KETSU-GO included methodical means calculated capable of destroying 800 Allied ships. Their air force of army and naval fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over the southernmost of the principal islands, with as many as 5,000 planes at a time (including the kamikazes used in successive waves), which they calculated would be sustained for 10 days. Within their plans the Imperial navy was to have been totally committed. Some destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to create anti-invasion gun platforms. Japan had identified the planned invasion sites.

The Japanese had a national slogan: one hundred million will die for the Emperor and nation — and few doubted that they were, as a whole, prepared to fight to the death. Twenty-eight million had been enrolled in a National Volunteer Combat Force, some inadequately armed, but fully committed. We would have had to use our entire military strength in defense.

Life-saving decision
Clearly, the loss of lives would have been far greater than initial estimates, probably more than twentyfold, had the invasion plans been carried out. The nuclear bombings averted the need for the scheduled invasions, the results of which would have been far worse than contemplated.

Had the invasion gone forward, the sustained fierce battles would have created enormous casualties. Many of our battle-weary divisions were scheduled to rotate directly to the invasion of Japan from German ports. As one of those scheduled to land as an infantry platoon leader, and in all likelihood been killed, I think I can speak for all veterans; I am glad that President Truman interjected. He took note of the planning, carefully considered the problems and exercised his wise decision to end the war forthwith.

It is clear from a study of the intelligence available and the plans our military prepared in light of then-available information of the intent and capabilities of the enemy that the battle that was to ensue would have become the most awful bloodbath in the history of modern warfare. Had the invasion been undertaken, it is estimated that the Japanese military deaths would have exceeded a million, with over 2 million additional casualties, if not more, plus many millions of civilian casualties also.

No serious historian would suggest that fewer civilians would have died in an invasion of Japan than died in the 2 atomic bombs. Millions upon millions of civilians would have been killed in artillery shelling, bombing runs, collateral damage, and because they would die fighting to defend their land and Emperor.

Personally, I think you do the Japanese a disservice by suggesting that only a very tiny fraction of the Japanese people would have given their lives fighting for their land and Emperor...

[Enkidu22]

Samurai007 your points are all valid, but the thing is such stories are often written just to justify US actions. Many WW II experts believe Japan would surrender even if A-bombs weren't used. And it's not that A-bomb alone forced them to capitulate, carpet bombings were in fact more "efficient" especially since US started using fire bombs to burm mostly wooden japanese cities to the ground, in some of those bombings more people were killed than in Hiroshima and countless more were made homeless. Other than that japan was very afraid of soviet invasion and many wanted to surrender to US just to choose "lesser evil". The thing is US wanted to trial Hirohito and that was unthinkable for japanese people, they capitulates shortly after US resigned from this demand.

But Tenchu I think you are exagerating a bit. It's not like all americans think the same as their politics do.

[Yon]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

... Not all Americans, but most do. I take it you are of the minority that disapproves of the governments general actions. Do you realize the governments who perform these attrocities are always re-elected. If not immediately (which they mostly are) then some time down the track they come back. Perhaps they electorate are too ignorant to know who they are electing, but that is hardly better...

I dont doubt that. What I meant is; a soldier on the ground chooses his victims. I do not consider the loss of life of a soldier or militia a bad thing. As long as he is willing to make that sacrafice. Killing people who turn their backs on danger and run is shameful. You cant see this. Personally, I would sacrafice 100,000 soldiers to save the life of 1 scared child. I am a soldier, it is okay for me to make these decisions. I dont came if 500 billion people died in a ground invasion, you are justifying the death of frightened inocent people. Do you even understand the kind of brutality you are condoneing? I dont think you do. You cant see it. I can see now you know more about history than me (even if you are a cyclops), so you might think I am infant to argue on the topic. But I know a coward when I see one. The US will stop at no evil and no peril to have its way and win its wars. It will not accept defeat, it will never bow. This is disrespectful and cowardly. The greatest quality a warrior has is his ability to kneel, and his ability to let go of his own life, as these are the hardest things to do. But the US can do none of this. Their idea of freedom and peace has warped their minds. Now they grab children as they run screaming and burn the skin off of them as they cry. I fail to see the difference between them and their enemies in Nazi Germany. Do you think the Jews in the gas chambers would have thought it was okay for them to die if a willing militia outside the chamber that outnumbered them didnt have to die? I somehow dont think they would have given a fuck about statistics when their guts started comeing out their mouths. You know I have been in a gas chamber before. A REAL ONE. I have BEEN gased. Only CS gas - like an extreme EXTREME form of tear gas. That hurt like fuck, I almost chocked to death on my own snot (that formed in about half a second, mind you) I can barely begin to relate what they felt like. Do you think the people who died by the US bombs thought "Its for the good of the world"? You are really deluded. Your values of freedom and peace have warped you. Now you act like your country had no choice. They did have a choice, and they choose to kill people who did not want to fight. Your statistics do not lift the title of coward. Justice like this is an illusion. A soldier can choose his victim, a bomb can not. Leave the wars for those who pick up the weapons, not the people who run from them.

This is one of the latest victims of the Vietnam war:

http://www.pharmtech.tu-bs.de/pharmg...m_77d6a5ba.jpg

This victim is from the nukes in Japan:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...c_Bomb_002.jpg

This is not an honorable thing. These people did not want to fight. How you can defend these actions is shameful.

i agree with you...a innocent people never wanted a war...so they don't deserve to die...
and we should protect those people or avoid them being hit by an attack or bom...

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

... Not all Americans, but most do. I take it you are of the minority that disapproves of the governments general actions. Do you realize the governments who perform these attrocities are always re-elected. If not immediately (which they mostly are) then some time down the track they come back. Perhaps they electorate are too ignorant to know who they are electing, but that is hardly better...

I dont doubt that. What I meant is; a soldier on the ground chooses his victims. I do not consider the loss of life of a soldier or militia a bad thing. As long as he is willing to make that sacrafice. Killing people who turn their backs on danger and run is shameful. You cant see this. Personally, I would sacrafice 100,000 soldiers to save the life of 1 scared child. I am a soldier, it is okay for me to make these decisions. I dont came if 500 billion people died in a ground invasion, you are justifying the death of frightened inocent people. Do you even understand the kind of brutality you are condoneing? I dont think you do. You cant see it. I can see now you know more about history than me (even if you are a cyclops), so you might think I am infant to argue on the topic. But I know a coward when I see one. The US will stop at no evil and no peril to have its way and win its wars. It will not accept defeat, it will never bow. This is disrespectful and cowardly. The greatest quality a warrior has is his ability to kneel, and his ability to let go of his own life, as these are the hardest things to do. But the US can do none of this. Their idea of freedom and peace has warped their minds. Now they grab children as they run screaming and burn the skin off of them as they cry. I fail to see the difference between them and their enemies in Nazi Germany. Do you think the Jews in the gas chambers would have thought it was okay for them to die if a willing militia outside the chamber that outnumbered them didnt have to die? I somehow dont think they would have given a fuck about statistics when their guts started comeing out their mouths. You know I have been in a gas chamber before. A REAL ONE. I have BEEN gased. Only CS gas - like an extreme EXTREME form of tear gas. That hurt like fuck, I almost chocked to death on my own snot (that formed in about half a second, mind you) I can barely begin to relate what they felt like. Do you think the people who died by the US bombs thought "Its for the good of the world"? You are really deluded. Your values of freedom and peace have warped you. Now you act like your country had no choice. They did have a choice, and they choose to kill people who did not want to fight. Your statistics do not lift the title of coward. Justice like this is an illusion. A soldier can choose his victim, a bomb can not. Leave the wars for those who pick up the weapons, not the people who run from them.

This is one of the latest victims of the Vietnam war:

http://www.pharmtech.tu-bs.de/pharmg...m_77d6a5ba.jpg

This victim is from the nukes in Japan:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...c_Bomb_002.jpg

This is not an honorable thing. These people did not want to fight. How you can defend these actions is shameful.

A soldier on the ground doesn't always choose his victims. There are accidents, there's artillery fire, there's collapsing buildings, grenades, mortars, a massive bombing and shelling campaign that would precede any land invasion, and so on. If you are a soldier, you ought to know that.

And I don't consider frightened civilians trying to defend their home and feebly attacking the troops worthy of wholesale slaughter by the millions, just to save a few hundred thousand other civilians, many of whom would have died during the invasion anyway, a fair trade. What's more, most soldiers and their families would have been furious if it ever came out that the US had worked so hard to develop the atomic bombs, (which were no more devastating than the combined power of the firebombs dropped on Tokyo and elsewhere), but refused to use them, choosing instead to have several million US soldiers give their lives, and kill 10 million+ Japanese soldiers and civilians in a needless invasion. I would not consider that a "brave" act on the part of the US govt, I'd call it an act of horrific brutality that could have been avoided, and thankfully was.

A lot of your words clearly have no relation to real life, and seem to be meant only to conjure images of barbarism. US soldiers were not "grabbing children as they run screaming to burn their skin off". They did not gas the Japanese, despite all your talk of that. They were and are NOT the same as Nazis, and if you'd heard of Godwin's Law, you'd know that you just fulfilled it. (If you don't know it, google it)

Finally, your comment about a soldier's greatest ability is to kneel is completely backwards IMHO. His greatest ability is to stand strong, defending the country and free people the world over from tyranny and oppression. Kneeling to Hitler and Hirohito would have been a disaster for the world, and meant a world living under the yoke of brutal and genocidal madmen and their regimes for "a thousand years Reich", if the Nazi rhetoric were to be believed. You say that would have been a good thing, if it meant sparing a few civilian lives in the short run? What about the long term, as those oppressive regimes slaughter all the remaining Jews, gypsy's, homosexuals, and disabled people in the world, enslave many other minority races, and crush anyone who dared try to stand up to them after they consolidated power... Is that the world you would choose? I sure wouldn't, and I thank the soldiers and civilians in WW2 who fought and died in order to prevent it.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

... Not all Americans, but most do. I take it you are of the minority that disapproves of the governments general actions. Do you realize the governments who perform these attrocities are always re-elected. If not immediately (which they mostly are) then some time down the track they come back. Perhaps they electorate are too ignorant to know who they are electing, but that is hardly better...

Tenchu, most Americans do NOT agree with the War in Iraq, with the President, and with the direction America is going.

A Gallup poll done this week puts the President's approval rating at 34% His dissapproval rating is at 62%.

This is the opposite of "most".

It is the majority that dissapproves.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Yon

i agree with you...a innocent people never wanted a war...so they don't deserve to die...
and we should protect those people or avoid them being hit by an attack or bom...

Did you even read what Samurai wrote?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

...
This is one of the latest victims of the Vietnam war:

http://www.pharmtech.tu-bs.de/pharmg...m_77d6a5ba.jpg

This victim is from the nukes in Japan:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...c_Bomb_002.jpg

This is not an honorable thing. These people did not want to fight. How you can defend these actions is shameful.

People use grotesque pictures when they run out of arguments. The anti-abotionists have been doing it for years.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

Tenchu, most Americans do NOT agree with the War in Iraq, with the President, and with the direction America is going.

A Gallup poll done this week puts the President's approval rating at 34% His dissapproval rating is at 62%.

This is the opposite of "most".

It is the majority that dissapproves.

This is a bit random, but have you seen "lions for lambs". Its a new film!

Actually, its not so random, the reason i mention this cos your post reminded me of something, and its simply a question...
Do you think that the disapproval is low now because of things like "this war has lasted longer than the world war?", or "people are fed up and arn't happy with the number of americans dying", or "because USA is getting a negative image"?

I wonder, if a poll like this was made in the first couple of years of the war, how many people would have agreed? even though, america (in my opnion), had nothing to do in the middle east!