"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

**ArmchairGeneral** · 02 Jan 09,, 04:35

Originally Posted by DRichards1968

Correct, but at least there would have been no radiation sickness. It is radioactive fallout that makes nuclear weapons so odious.

So burning a few hundred thousand people alive is preferable to making their hair fall out and giving some of them cancer?

**ArmchairGeneral** · 02 Jan 09,, 04:47

Just for kicks and giggles...

**Kommunist** · 02 Jan 09,, 06:14

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

So burning a few hundred thousand people alive is preferable to making their hair fall out and giving some of them cancer?

Neither is "preferable", but didn't know radiation hazards were limited to this only.

**Marcurix** · 02 Jan 09,, 08:42

i have to agree with alot of comments on here, The Atmoic bomb did not win the war, merly it just showed the USA tryingto scare the USSR.

**~~DRichards1968~~** · 02 Jan 09,, 18:22

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

So burning a few hundred thousand people alive is preferable to making their hair fall out and giving some of them cancer?

Most victims of bombing were not burned alive, but suffocated, as the firestorm sucks oxygen out of the air. Only a minority die of burns.

Radioactive illness causes cancer and a painful, slow death, so yes, it is worse than being killed in bombing.

**~~DRichards1968~~** · 02 Jan 09,, 18:24

Originally Posted by Marcurix

i have to agree with alot of comments on here, The Atmoic bomb did not win the war, merly it just showed the USA tryingto scare the USSR.

That was one of main reasons why the bombs were used, no doubt about it.

**ANZAC** · 03 Jan 09,, 07:06

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which supports my point that no one knew whether Japan wanted to surrender or not, not even Japan and hence, the very valid and very correct assumption that Japan was going to fight to the death.

U.S. code breakers had been reading massive amounts of Japanese diplomatic and military codes for years through Magic and Purple, so they knew the Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war, which is how they ambushed Yamamoto by the way.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

ie, saving his own skin.

Surrendering without a guarantee of his own safety, therefore facing the very real possibility of execution seems a strange way of trying to "save his own skin.''

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Translation, when he knew he cannot save his own skin, he decided to save his honour.

Seems a strange argument also, seeing as how the code of "never" surrendering was deemed the most honourable thing to do.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

All you are showing me is that the man is more worried about his reputation than the well being of his people.

He had nothing to do with writing the the speech, therefore it had nothing to do with him being worried about his reputation.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And my point is that Hirohito was willing to burn the last baby to save his reputation.

I'm a bit confused here, above you state that he [Hirohito] surrended to save his honour, now you're saying exactly the opposite, that he was willing to sacrifice the entire population to acheive the same thing, has to be one or the other.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're sh!tting me! Nanking anyone? And do you actually think that Stalin cared about the Japanese population? How many Berlins was he willing to do on Japan?

You keep mentioning the atrocity of Nanking as if it was a reason for world revenge against the Japanese, but what did the world do about the Nanking atrocity, virtually nothing, it was business as usual with Japan, as if it didn't happen at all.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

There were eight armies numbering over 2 million men willing to do a Genghis Khan on Japan.

But like the Mongols failed to invade, it's debatable that the Soviets could either, with their limited amphibious capabilities, as for the Chinese, could you tell me how they were supposed to invade?

What was the largest number of troops the Soviets made in amphibious landings in one echelon, in the Kurile islands or Sakhalin?

**ANZAC** · 07 Jan 09,, 04:56

''unconditional'' small word, but were there big consequences.

If the Japanese got the green light to keep the Mikado, the surrender would most likely have followed quickly, meaning no Soviet intervention, the U.S. taking over the whole of Korea, no Korean war and no nuclear armed unstable dictator holding the World to Ransom.

And in the end, the Americans did what the Japanese wanted all along, let Hirohito keep the throne.

**Officer of Engineers** · 07 Jan 09,, 05:55

Originally Posted by ANZAC

U.S. code breakers had been reading massive amounts of Japanese diplomatic and military codes for years through Magic and Purple, so they knew the Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war, which is how they ambushed Yamamoto by the way.

Hence, the US knew the Japanese refusal of unconditional surrender.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Surrendering without a guarantee of his own safety, therefore facing the very real possibility of execution seems a strange way of trying to "save his own skin.''

Like I said, once he knew he could not save his own skin (which was after 2 nukes and a Soviet invasion of Manchuria), he decided to save his honour.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Seems a strange argument also, seeing as how the code of "never" surrendering was deemed the most honourable thing to do.

Comes right back to what the Japanese did. They gave no honour to the Chinese and expected none when the favour was about to be returned.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

He had nothing to do with writing the the speech, therefore it had nothing to do with him being worried about his reputation.

HORSE CRAPPY! He was the one who read it. If he didn't like it, he did not have to read it and yes, he had the authority to refuse. I have detailed his screaming at his ministers about the attack on Pearl Harbour. This was not a puppet but a man fully aware of his authority and his responsibilities.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

I'm a bit confused here, above you state that he [Hirohito] surrended to save his honour, now you're saying exactly the opposite, that he was willing to sacrifice the entire population to acheive the same thing, has to be one or the other.

He sated the American desire for vengence. Once he surrendered, he knew American blood lust was gone. The same cannot be said of Chinese blood lust and Soviet blood lust/

Originally Posted by ANZAC

You keep mentioning the atrocity of Nanking as if it was a reason for world revenge against the Japanese, but what did the world do about the Nanking atrocity, virtually nothing, it was business as usual with Japan, as if it didn't happen at all.

The world was not about to send 5 Chinese armies into Japan. Stalin had plans to do just that.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

But like the Mongols failed to invade, it's debatable that the Soviets could either, with their limited amphibious capabilities, as for the Chinese, could you tell me how they were supposed to invade?

Read up on my posts, the Japanese were not prepared for a Soviet invasion of Harikou.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

What was the largest number of troops the Soviets made in amphibious landings in one echelon, in the Kurile islands or Sakhalin?

Two armies and after that, it would only be time when Soviet transports can put 5 Chinese armies on Japanese soil. Considering what AUGUST STORM did, do you have any illusions what 5 Chinese armies under Soviet Generals, especially Zuhkov, was about to do on Japan?

**ANZAC** · 10 Jan 09,, 06:35

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Hence, the US knew the Japanese refusal of unconditional surrender.

Think just about everyone, knew that, OoE, but that's not the point.
I was answering your post, where you said........

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which supports my point that no one knew whether Japan wanted to surrender or not, not even Japan and hence, the very valid and very correct assumption that Japan was going to fight to the death.

With my post....

Originally Posted by ANZAC

U.S. code breakers had been reading massive amounts of Japanese diplomatic and military codes for years through Magic and Purple, so they knew the Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war, which is how they ambushed Yamamoto by the way.

Which was just bringing you up to speed with what the American [and British]
code breakers had been doing for years.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Comes right back to what the Japanese did. They gave no honour to the Chinese and expected none when the favour was about to be returned.

But that in no way saves Hirohito's honour. does it?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I have detailed his screaming at his ministers about the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Could you give me post you have detailing his screaming at his ministers about the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

He sated the American desire for vengence. Once he surrendered, he knew American blood lust was gone. The same cannot be said of Chinese blood lust and Soviet blood lust/

Think the only thing would finally sate the American fighting man, was Hirohito dangling on the end of a rope.
But in the end the powers that be let him reign for another 40 years.

That's politics I guess.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The world was not about to send 5 Chinese armies into Japan. Stalin had plans to do just that.

Sources?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Read up on my posts, the Japanese were not prepared for a Soviet invasion of Harikou.

In what way were they not prepared for an invasion of Hokkaido?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Two armies and after that, it would only be time when Soviet transports can put 5 Chinese armies on Japanese soil. Considering what AUGUST STORM did, do you have any illusions what 5 Chinese armies under Soviet Generals, especially Zuhkov, was about to do on Japan?

Are you saying that the Soviets landed two armies in amphibious landings in one wave in the Kurile islands or Sakhalin?

Well, that sounds incredulous, that the Soviets actually had the capacity to match Overlord with their limited amphibious capability.

The largest amphibious landing I've been able to come across, was comprised of the 335th Infantry Division, 13th Marine Brigade and 355th Marine Battalion of the Pacific Fleet which was landed over two days.

From Glantz.....
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z3/glantz3.asp

You have to admit, that's a fair way from two armies.

But as the info is pretty limited on that area of August Storm, I'd be very interested to see your sources on amphibious landings.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jan 09,, 06:47

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Think just about everyone, knew that, OoE, but that's not the point.
I was answering your post, where you said........

With my post....

And what is your point? We were not going to allow Hirohito a pass. The Japanese knew it. We knew it. And hence, no surrender. Period.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Which was just bringing you up to speed with what the American [and British] code breakers had been doing for years.

So what? We know that they won't surrender.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

But that in no way saves Hirohito's honour. does it?

Do you even understand how Japanese see suicide?

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Could you give me post you have detailing his screaming at his ministers about the attack on Pearl Harbour.

I have done this verbatum and an tired of it to the hilt. Search for it on this forum with "Hirihito"

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Think the only thing would finally sate the American fighting man, was Hirohito dangling on the end of a rope.
But in the end the powers that be let him reign for another 40 years.

That's politics I guess.

Not the powers that be but one man, Douglas MacArthur.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Sources?

Do a search here.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

In what way were they not prepared for an invasion of Hokkaido?

In the sense that they were pyschologically and physically oriented the wrong way.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Are you saying that the Soviets landed two armies in amphibious landings in one wave in the Kurile islands or Sakhalin?

I'm saying that had plans to do so.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Well, that sounds incredulous, that the Soviets actually had the capacity to match Overlord with their limited amphibious capability.

You're forgetting the Russian Merchant Marines.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

The largest amphibious landing I've been able to come across, was comprised of the 335th Infantry Division, 13th Marine Brigade and 355th Marine Battalion of the Pacific Fleet which was landed over two days.

When unopposed, that's more than enough

Originally Posted by ANZAC

From Glantz.....
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z3/glantz3.asp

You have to admit, that's a fair way from two armies.

Doesn't change the fact that Stalin was ready to do more.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

But as the info is pretty limited on that area of August Storm, I'd be very interested to see your sources on amphibious landings.

I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

**ANZAC** · 11 Jan 09,, 06:58

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Do you even understand how Japanese see suicide?

Yes, I know of the ritual of Seppuku.
But Hirohito didn't do the honourable thing and commit harikiri, did he?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

In the sense that they were pyschologically and physically oriented the wrong way.

'If'you mean that Hokkaido was undefended.
It was defended by the 5th area army.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm saying that had plans to do so.

So now it's plans to do so.

But you didn't say that originally, OoE, my question was...

Originally Posted by ANZAC

What was the largest number of troops the Soviets made in amphibious landings in one echelon, in the Kurile islands or Sakhalin?

And you answered..

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Two armies and after that, it would only be time when Soviet transports can put 5 Chinese armies on Japanese soil. Considering what AUGUST STORM did, do you have any illusions what 5 Chinese armies under Soviet Generals, especially Zuhkov, was about to do on Japan?

If you don't have any sources to back the claim that two armies 'were' landed, do you have any to back the ''plans'' to land two armies in one amphibious attack?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

When unopposed, that's more than enough

The Soviets were never unopposed.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

O.K.

**Torgut** · 13 Jan 09,, 04:31

Well, a war crime is a war crime, and from the planet where I come from, murdering a civilian is a war crime. How about some hundred thousands in a click? No idea. Perhaps it isn't.

Hummm let me explore a little further... the dudes who dropped this bombs weren't the same who accused (and condemned) a bunch of Germans at Nurenberg Court for reasons as using a torpedo in civilian ships not rescuing the crew (no, not forgeting the real evil Germans who were present at the same court)?

Furthermore I have the feeling (bot not the certainity) that the old reason "kill a few hundred thousands to save some others" is not so clear as some people keep passing the word. It often sounds like more a bad excuse but numbering alternatives and scenarios would be too long for my current availability.

**beez26** · 04 Feb 09,, 07:50

Originally Posted by Marcurix

i have to agree with alot of comments on here, The Atmoic bomb did not win the war, merly it just showed the USA tryingto scare the USSR.

Really I like how everyone thinks the USA just decided one day "hey lets drop an atom bomb to scare the Russians" (who at the time were our allies probably the least trusted of them but still allies)
Your crazy, several things where factored in at the time first and foremost before the bomb was dropped Japan gave no indications it was ready to surrender or even negotiate. Several of the US's top military planners set down and did a study it it would have taken over a million troops to invade japan succesfully with very astonishing losses in the hundreds of thousands, this is after the US and its allies have already lost hundreds of thousands of troops and finacially most countries were ready to go backrupted at the time due to the cost of maintaining such large forces to fight this war. The US had no idea at the time that stalin was even close to an atom bomb to compete with them and would challenge them in eastern europe like he did. So why would you even make such a claim. Dropping those bombs while I am not a proponent of using them was probably the best possible outcome that they had at the time. I have no problems with the way they were used.