"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

[ace16807]

On some level I wonder if the Japanese should be thankful that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. The Soviets entered the war on August 9th, and if the United States hadn't nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan might have fallen under the Soviet yoke.

I don't believe the Soviets had the proper logistics to conduct the large scale amphibious invasion required to take Japan. They had not conducted any significant amphibious operations previously, unlike the US, which was well versed in it.

[ANZAC]

So by your own admission, the only man who mattered in the surrender was Hirohito who can give the order one way or the other.

Yep, got it in one.

Seriously, do you think that the civilians of Okinawa wanted to jump off cliffs. Because that is the ONLY explaination to your arguement, that WE, the Western Allies, gave Japanese civilians no choice.

Nope, Japanese army told them that it would be worse then death to be taken by the Americans........



.....Japanese Imperial Army behind WW2 mass suicide in Okinawa.
Japanese judges have dismissed a libel case against Nobel prize-winning author Kenzaburo Oe, who was charged of lying about the Japan's war time past. Oe's book "Okinawa Notes" tells that the Japanese military ordered hundreds of civilians to commit suicide as American troops gained ground during The Second World War. A retired army officer and another man said the military never gave the order, but the court dismissed their claim. Analysts say the ruling vindicates Oe's views on Okinawa's history. The battle pitted 2 retired officers against Japan's best-known living author.......



.....Battle over Okinawa world war II history rages on.
For historian Masayasu Oshiro, who has documented the sufferings of communities that were caught in the only battle fought on Japanese soil between the Imperial Army and US troops, the facts are clear. "I have recorded countless stories told by aging Okinawan war survivors. They include horrifying accounts of how people committed mass suicide and murder under orders from the Japanese military." Such recordings are irksome for the Japanese govt that is keen to whitewash this part of history. Nobuaki Kinjo revealed that he had killed his mother and sister, believing that he was saving them from torture.......


.....Imperial army 'forced' Okinawa mass suicides.
Researchers of the 1945 Battle of Okinawa agree that the Imperial army "forced and steered" civilians to commit mass suicide during the only full-scale ground battle in Japan during World War II. Hirofumi Hayashi, an authority on modern Japanese history, expressed the view in a statement passed on to the textbook-screening panel, which is deliberating requests to reinstate references about the military's role in forcing civilians to commit suicide. Hayashi said he responded to a request from the Textbook Authorization Council, which advises the education minister, and had asked a number of researchers on the battle to file their views........

Yes, I will admit that the Japanese population wanted to surrender but I will also state that without a doubt that they did not dare to surrender without Hirohito's permission. What Japan wanted was irrevlent, what Hirohito wanted was all that mattered.

I agree.

Just curious about what you meant in your original post........

''And that was ALL that mattred, especially in establishing Hirohito's guilt.''

You could be on the ball there tankie.
But cripes, what do you know that I don't with your last remark.:enukes.

Just a guess mate as to how the Iran Q is unfolding

Think it could be on do you tankie, lets hope and pray your wrong.

I don't believe the Soviets had the proper logistics to conduct the large scale amphibious invasion required to take Japan. They had not conducted any significant amphibious operations previously, unlike the US, which was well versed in it.

Was it possible for the Soviets to invade Hokkaido before operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945 by the Americans?

The Japanese only had 5 weak divisions on Hokkaido, and about 170 aircraft, on the other hand the Russian amphibious capabilities were limited.

Its naval forces by August 1945, the Pacific Fleet, had 2 cruisers, 1 flagship, 10 destroyers, 2 torpedo boats, 19 patrol boats, 78 submarines, 10 minelayers, 52 minesweepers, 49 “MO” boats, 204 motor torpedo boats, 1459 battle planes.

The Soviets made limited amphibious landings in the Kurile Islands, Sakhalin Island and North Korea, but what would be the most men landed in one echelon, battalion, division, I'm not sure?

Stalin told Vasilevski to prepare an invasion of Hokkaido, but later canceled the order, perhaps on American persuasion?

[tankie]

Think it could be on do you tankie, lets hope and pray your wrong.

Conflict i think is inevitable with Iran , but i hope im wrong ,and wrong about nuclear , but if it does happen , i hope its not gonna be a long drawn out affair like Iraq AND Afghanistan , so the only way to deal with the swiftness of it is ??????????? , But it would prevent lives being lost on the opposite sides in military action , but terrorism on home soils will increase .IMO

[Johnny W]

I agree its an opinion.
But tell me, when most of Japan's navy gone, War in europe over, Rusia entering the fray against Japan, were the nukes necessary?

One more thing, what is the limit for collateral damage?

The nukes were necessary if the the invasion was necessary.

We could have left Japan surrounded, blockaded, and cutoff to die on the vine so to speak. Its hard to see how doing so would have caused any fewer casualties than the bombing did though. But I think the decision was made at the highest levels of allied leadership that the only acceptable end to the war was unconditional surrender. And the only way this was going to happen irt Japan was invasion or the bombs. And the bombs did save American lives (and probably British and Russian as well).

[Guest]

I think it is safe to say that the Soviet got most of things (Manchuria and half of Korea) they aim to get by the time the A-bombs were dropped.

Knowing their own shortcomings in the East, the Soviets probably aimed at realistic aims such as the conquest of Korea and Manchuria, and probably never even bother planning for the invasion of the Japan proper. Probably not even Hokaiddo.

[Guest]

It is said that the Meiji restoration transferred power from the shogunate to the samurai clans, rather than the imperial familly. Althought, the latter is always stated historically.

Those samurai clans became the new oligarchs of Japan, and held actual power till the 20s, where their power startred to diminish steadilly. The oligarchs were gradually replaced by the militarists in the position of power in the 30s.

[ANZAC]

Conflict i think is inevitable with Iran , but i hope im wrong ,and wrong about nuclear , but if it does happen , i hope its not gonna be a long drawn out affair like Iraq AND Afghanistan , so the only way to deal with the swiftness of it is ??????????? , But it would prevent lives being lost on the opposite sides in military action , but terrorism on home soils will increase .IMO

An Iraqi style ''shock and awe'' type strike is possible, or even a U.S. backed Israeli strike, but I'm betting against it.

As for nukes, India/Pakistan some time in the future could be scary.

The nukes were necessary if the the invasion was necessary.

We could have left Japan surrounded, blockaded, and cutoff to die on the vine so to speak. Its hard to see how doing so would have caused any fewer casualties than the bombing did though. But I think the decision was made at the highest levels of allied leadership that the only acceptable end to the war was unconditional surrender. And the only way this was going to happen irt Japan was invasion or the bombs. And the bombs did save American lives (and probably British and Russian as well).

What would you do if you were in command, and Japan didn't surrender, [after the nukes] blockade and conventional bombing, or invade?

[Johnny W]

An Iraqi style ''shock and awe'' type strike is possible, or even a U.S. backed Israeli strike, but I'm betting against it.

As for nukes, India/Pakistan some time in the future could be scary.




What would you do if you were in command, and Japan didn't surrender, [after the nukes] blockade and conventional bombing, or invade?

It seems to me looking back 65 years that there was such a hatred between the two enemies, that invasion was the only option that they considered other than the bombs. I think there was a certain level of respect between the Western allies and the Germans, at least until the concentration camps were discovered, but that respect seemed to be mostly absent in the pacific in part due to racism (on both sides) and in part due to the fanatical ways the Japanese fought (banzai charges and brutal treatment of anyone that was captured).

But your question is what would I have done? Honestly, I don't really know for certain. I definitely would have threatened to use more bombs, even if we didn't have anymore. I would have distributed leaflets throughout Japan with pictures and news of the destruction just to ensure the entire populace knew about it. But if they were still unwilling to surrender, I guess I would have invaded eventually.

[Kommunist]

An Iraqi style ''shock and awe'' type strike is possible, or even a U.S. backed Israeli strike, but I'm betting against it.

As for nukes, India/Pakistan some time in the future could be scary.

What would you do if you were in command, and Japan didn't surrender, [after the nukes] blockade and conventional bombing, or invade?

Well, after you've nuked them twice, and they didn't surrender, why would they go for blockades and conventional warfare. Keep nuking them, until they surrender or there is nobody left to surrender. Thats the logic behind the whole thing according to me.

Cos, its the same if you murder 10 people, or 20 - you get death row.

Why invade, when there is a chance of suffering unnecessary losses?

[ANZAC]

It seems to me looking back 65 years that there was such a hatred between the two enemies, that invasion was the only option that they considered other than the bombs. I think there was a certain level of respect between the Western allies and the Germans, at least until the concentration camps were discovered, but that respect seemed to be mostly absent in the pacific in part due to racism (on both sides) and in part due to the fanatical ways the Japanese fought (banzai charges and brutal treatment of anyone that was captured).

But your question is what would I have done? Honestly, I don't really know for certain. I definitely would have threatened to use more bombs, even if we didn't have anymore. I would have distributed leaflets throughout Japan with pictures and news of the destruction just to ensure the entire populace knew about it. But if they were still unwilling to surrender, I guess I would have invaded eventually.

The Bombing survey said that Japan would probably surrender before the invasion date, even if the nukes weren't used or the Soviets hadn't declared war, so 'if' they were right there would be no invasion.

But even if the Japanese didn't surrender by the invasion date, how much longer could a country in Japans situation last?

Well, after you've nuked them twice, and they didn't surrender, why would they go for blockades and conventional warfare. Keep nuking them, until they surrender or there is nobody left to surrender. Thats the logic behind the whole thing according to me.

Cos, its the same if you murder 10 people, or 20 - you get death row.

Why invade, when there is a chance of suffering unnecessary losses?

The moral [and legal] question of bombing civilians does open a can of worms, doesn't it?

[Kommunist]

The moral [and legal] question of bombing civilians does open a can of worms, doesn't it?

It sure does.
But those are not my views. I was just extending and applying the logic used by some here defending the nukes.

[ANZAC]

it sure does.
But those are not my views. I was just extending and applying the logic used by some here defending the nukes.

o.k.

[Johnny W]

The Bombing survey said that Japan would probably surrender before the invasion date, even if the nukes weren't used or the Soviets hadn't declared war, so 'if' they were right there would be no invasion.

But even if the Japanese didn't surrender by the invasion date, how much longer could a country in Japans situation last?

I guess the real question is how many of its citizens would Japan be willing to sacrifice before surrendering? I do think that there were some in power, especially in the army, who would prefer the country as a whole die instead of surrendering. Even after the bombs, some felt that way. Fortunately, more rational leaders prevailed.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Bombing survey said that Japan would probably surrender before the invasion date,

All it took was a determined Emperor to surrender, even against a coup. By the same token, all it would have taken not to surrender was also a determined Emperor.

After two nukes, it still took a Russian Army to destroy all Japanese hope.

But even if the Japanese didn't surrender by the invasion date, how much longer could a country in Japans situation last?

How long did China lasted after 10 years of genocidic warfare?

[DRichards1968]

I don't think it was militarily justified to drop the atom bombs; the reason being that the Americans were able to destroy Japanese cities with purely conventional explosives (e.g. Tokyo in March 1945). With sufficiently intense conventional bombing, Japan would have surrendered anyway before the end of 1945.

I believe that the reason Truman was in a hurry is because he feared that the Soviets would attempt an invasion of Japan before the US forces were ready. So he decided that he needed a quick end to it regardless of the (enemy) human cost. I think that politically it was a shrewd decision, but from a humanitarian point of view utterly deplorable.