Yasukuni shrine

[samurai007]

This is all a bit off topic, so I'll just wrap it up by saying that I agree with you that Saddam needed to go, and unfortunately the job was very poorly managed, and thank you for your service in the military.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

The 2 main things I tended to be asked were "Do many Americans still hate us for Pearl Harbor?" and "What did you think of the atomic bombs being used?" (Answers: "Not many at all, only a few old folks who were alive in WW2 might still hold any real grudge about that" and "Unfortunate, devastating, but helped end the war faster and with fewer casualties on both sides than if we'd gone ahead with the planned invasion.")

I think I would've answered differently to the question "What did you think of the atomic bombs being used?"

I would've answered "Completely unnecessary to end the war as Japan was all but finished. It was just a matter of time untill they surrendered which means a ground invasion was unnecessary (we'll never know for sure but those in support make a good case), however at the time the United States was aware of the coming Soviet threat therefore the A-bombs were a "warning shot" aimed at the Soviets"

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I think I would've answered differently to the question "What did you think of the atomic bombs being used?"

I would've answered "Completely unnecessary to end the war as Japan was all but finished. It was just a matter of time untill they surrendered which means a ground invasion was unnecessary (we'll never know for sure but those in support make a good case), however at the time the United States was aware of the coming Soviet threat therefore the A-bombs were a "warning shot" aimed at the Soviets"

No, not really. I did a 32 page Honors History Thesis on the subject, reviewed tons of sources (both American and Japanese), and I can tell you that a) impressing the Soviets was never the goal, it was at most a secondary or tertiary side effect, b) plans were most definitely underway to invade Kyushu if the bomb had not been developed in time, which would have resulted in millions of casualties, and c) the Japanese were not on the verge of surrender, they felt they could hold out for many more months and were very hopeful the Americans would negotiate a favorable cessation of hostilities rather than invade. Even after the Soviets entered the fight and Hiroshima was bombed, there was 100% unanimous agreement by the Japanese leadership to continue the war. After Nagasaki, it was a 50/50 split, allowing the Emperor to cast the tie-breaking vote to surrender. If just 1 single member had voted the other way, the invasion was set to go ahead, because we didn't have any more atomic bombs (though we'd lied and said we did at the time), and it would take months to build another one.

Frankly, I think it does a disservice to the indomitable will of the Japanese people to say they would have surrendered anyway, without any additional provocation or bombing. They were willing to fight to pretty much the last man (and woman) to protect their homeland and Emperor, and massive defensive efforts had been underway for months to defend the islands. They would not have gone to all that effort of arming civilians, training them, building fortifications, etc if they were planning to surrender soon anyway. That just doesn't make sense.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

No, not really. I did a 32 page Honors History Thesis on the subject, reviewed tons of sources (both American and Japanese), and I can tell you that a) impressing the Soviets was never the goal, it was at most a secondary or tertiary side effect, b) plans were most definitely underway to invade Kyushu if the bomb had not been developed in time, which would have resulted in millions of casualties, and c) the Japanese were not on the verge of surrender, they felt they could hold out for many more months and were very hopeful the Americans would negotiate a favorable cessation of hostilities rather than invade. Even after the Soviets entered the fight and Hiroshima was bombed, there was 100% unanimous agreement by the Japanese leadership to continue the war. After Nagasaki, it was a 50/50 split, allowing the Emperor to cast the tie-breaking vote to surrender. If just 1 single member had voted the other way, the invasion was set to go ahead, because we didn't have any more atomic bombs (though we'd lied and said we did at the time), and it would take months to build another one.

I am nowhere near your level of expertise on the subject so I won't argue with you. I've simply read otherwise.

A few questions though.... Why did they want to invade when they could simply suffocate the Japanese into surrender? Also... what was the problem with a negotiated cessation of hostilities? Why was a complete, unconditional surrender the goal?

Originally Posted by samurai007

Frankly, I think it does a disservice to the indomitable will of the Japanese people to say they would have surrendered anyway, without any additional provocation or bombing. They were willing to fight to pretty much the last man (and woman) to protect their homeland and Emperor, and massive defensive efforts had been underway for months to defend the islands. They would not have gone to all that effort of arming civilians, training them, building fortifications, etc if they were planning to surrender soon anyway. That just doesn't make sense

I'm not interested in stroking cultural egos. I'm not really into Nationalism or imagined identities either. In my opinion the Japanese are as human as the rest of us. Whether or not they would've fought to the last man... they would've either surrendered, or fought and lost. It's simply history to me... When it comes to WW2 I've as much emotional investment or consideration of sensitivities as I do when it comes to the adventures of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or the conquest of India by the British Empire. I understand why some old people would... but really people need to get over it along with Nationalism and militarism altogether in my opinion.

[kyo_9]

I would like to go there..
:d

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I am nowhere near your level of expertise on the subject so I won't argue with you. I've simply read otherwise.

A few questions though.... Why did they want to invade when they could simply suffocate the Japanese into surrender? Also... what was the problem with a negotiated cessation of hostilities? Why was a complete, unconditional surrender the goal?



I'm not interested in stroking cultural egos. I'm not really into Nationalism or imagined identities either. In my opinion the Japanese are as human as the rest of us. Whether or not they would've fought to the last man... they would've either surrendered, or fought and lost. It's simply history to me... When it comes to WW2 I've as much emotional investment or consideration of sensitivities as I do when it comes to the adventures of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or the conquest of India by the British Empire. I understand why some old people would... but really people need to get over it along with Nationalism and militarism altogether in my opinion.

They could not "suffocate the Japanese into surrender". For a siege to work, the opponent must not be able to replenish its supplies, primarily food. It's true that we'd had a navel blockade around Japan for quite a while, which meant oil, steel, and other imports were stopped from reaching Japan. But they had food, and could keep growing more, meaning we'd never starve them out. At best it would be a stand-off while our men (tired after years of war in Europe and now the Pacific campaign) sat on ships off the coast while the Japanese held the islands. And due to skirmishes, accidents, diseases, etc, an average of 250 American soldiers died each day, even if there was no major battle. Which meant the Japanese could just wait for us to leave or die off.

The Japanese wanted to keep some or all of their empire that remained, and keep the military-led government that had prosecuted the war. Those were 2 things the allies refused to allow. They also wanted assurances that the Emperor would not be executed, which the Americans didn't have a problem with. But the terms of Japanese surrender had been agreed upon by the 3 Allies (US, England, and Russia) at the Potsdam Conference, and what all 3 had agreed was "unconditional surrender, then we'll sort things out after". The US unilaterally accepting a negotiated surrender would have broken the agreement that had been made and make the US look weak, and Russia certainly didn't want to accept conditions. It wanted to extend the war, in fact, because it was attacking the Japanese imperial holdings on the Asian mainland, with the goal of keeping everything it took after the war, just as it had done in Europe. So, letting the war continue a few more months would have meant Russia would gain Manchuria, Korea, and swept right down the coast and taken south-east Asia as well.

Third, if you read about the massive efforts being put into the Japanese homeland defense, and read statements like the following from the Japanese Imperial Headquarters: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.", and knew about the Japanese soldiers refusals to surrender in the entire Island hopping campaign in the Pacific, fighting until practically the last man for worthless little islands that were not even their homelands (Germans and others usually surrendered when it became obvious they were going to lose, resulting in many PoWs, but except for a few cases, the only Japanese PoWs tended to be those who were too injured to keep fighting, but had not died.) The Japanese did not look at surrendering when in a tough or losing position the same way the Nazis and others did, and that was proven time after time in the Pacific, and would have only been more true on their home islands.

Here are the number of Japanese soldiers, the number of PoWs, and the % that fought to the death in each place:

Attu -----2350 ----29 ----98.8%
Tarawa --2571 -----8 ----99.7%
Roi-Namur 3472 ---51 ----98.5%
Kwajalein 5017 ----79 -----98.4%
Saipan 30,000 ----921 ----97%
Iwo Jima 21,000 --1,083 ---95%
Okinawa 92,000 ---7,401 ---92%

Finally, they would not have necessarily "fought and lost". They had more forces on the Japanese mainland than we initially knew about. And even if they did lose, it would have cost millions upon millions of lives, both US and Japanese, including a great many civilians (either as accidents or because they attacked the invaders out of honor. They were training women and children how to fight, how to stick bombs on tanks, etc.)

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

They could not "suffocate the Japanese into surrender". For a siege to work, the opponent must not be able to replenish its supplies, primarily food. It's true that we'd had a navel blockade around Japan for quite a while, which meant oil, steel, and other imports were stopped from reaching Japan. But they had food, and could keep growing more, meaning we'd never starve them out. At best it would be a stand-off while our men (tired after years of war in Europe and now the Pacific campaign) sat on ships off the coast while the Japanese held the islands. And due to skirmishes, accidents, diseases, etc, an average of 250 American soldiers died each day, even if there was no major battle. Which meant the Japanese could just wait for us to leave or die off.

The Japanese wanted to keep some or all of their empire that remained, and keep the military-led government that had prosecuted the war. Those were 2 things the allies refused to allow. They also wanted assurances that the Emperor would not be executed, which the Americans didn't have a problem with. But the terms of Japanese surrender had been agreed upon by the 3 Allies (US, England, and Russia) at the Potsdam Conference, and what all 3 had agreed was "unconditional surrender, then we'll sort things out after". The US unilaterally accepting a negotiated surrender would have broken the agreement that had been made and make the US look weak, and Russia certainly didn't want to accept conditions. It wanted to extend the war, in fact, because it was attacking the Japanese imperial holdings on the Asian mainland, with the goal of keeping everything it took after the war, just as it had done in Europe. So, letting the war continue a few more months would have meant Russia would gain Manchuria, Korea, and swept right down the coast and taken south-east Asia as well.

Third, if you read about the massive efforts being put into the Japanese homeland defense, and read statements like the following from the Japanese Imperial Headquarters: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.", and knew about the Japanese soldiers refusals to surrender in the entire Island hopping campaign in the Pacific, fighting until practically the last man for worthless little islands that were not even their homelands (Germans and others usually surrendered when it became obvious they were going to lose, resulting in many PoWs, but except for a few cases, the only Japanese PoWs tended to be those who were too injured to keep fighting, but had not died.) The Japanese did not look at surrendering when in a tough or losing position the same way the Nazis and others did, and that was proven time after time in the Pacific, and would have only been more true on their home islands.

Here are the number of Japanese soldiers, the number of PoWs, and the % that fought to the death in each place:

Attu -----2350 ----29 ----98.8%
Tarawa --2571 -----8 ----99.7%
Roi-Namur 3472 ---51 ----98.5%
Kwajalein 5017 ----79 -----98.4%
Saipan 30,000 ----921 ----97%
Iwo Jima 21,000 --1,083 ---95%
Okinawa 92,000 ---7,401 ---92%

I see... I suppose I was partially right... but still... I didn't realise how clueless I was about the end of WW2...

Originally Posted by samurai007

Finally, they would not have necessarily "fought and lost". They had more forces on the Japanese mainland than we initially knew about. And even if they did lose, it would have cost millions upon millions of lives, both US and Japanese, including a great many civilians (either as accidents or because they attacked the invaders out of honor. They were training women and children how to fight, how to stick bombs on tanks, etc.)

Oh right... I was trying to point out the lack of adjectives when I describe my perception of the war rather than making a case for anything. But thanks for clueing me up nonetheless.

(i.e. "They fought and lost" as opposed to "They fought bravely/courageously/with honour etc... but lost." )