aircooled wrote: So, are you saying that any thread that goes on for any time is automatically wrong in some way?
That seems to be the general consensus of a lot of people around here lately. Like there is some sort of post count limit that makes a thread a disgrace to this place.
As far as the bomb goes, I just hope the world never sees another one.
z31maniac wrote: How is thread continuing? I typically am up for a good/raucous debate but this is an echo chamber considering the number of top level military/executive level people whom have said it was a posturing position. Isn't there a fair amount of evidence that Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs?
I don't know, is there? How about finding and presenting it rather than criticizing us for even having the discussion?
No wonder Adrian took a few days off, and I didn't feel anyworse not announcing I wasn't here for almost a week. This is really getting bad guys.
Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's a civil discussion of an important, interesting historical event. What's the problem?
I'm guessing he's upset that someone used the L word … shrug
In reply to wbjones:
Here's what I know. That article posted earlier about "the real reason" the US dropped the bomb is full of crap and unattributed quotes. The nearest I could find was LeMay saying we didn't need a blockade, that we could "bomb them and burn them until they quit". Well, the firebomb campaign was far more destructive, burning the hearts out of a very many cities and went on for months, with no surrender, so on the face of it ol' Curtis was wrong. Yes there were a few in Tokyo who wanted to surrender, but mostly they got shot by those who didn't. I have seen the photos of the military training all and sundry, old men, women and kids, to stand on the beaches with anything down to including sharp sticks. They were prepared to sacrifice the entire nation to keep the war going. The other thing I know is that after my grandfather died we found his marching orders, he was gonna be on the Cornet invasion. Between that one and Olympic, MacArthur and the rest of the Pacific command were expecting a million casualties just on our side. The Japanese side I suspect would have been uncountable. I very strongly believe that had we not used the bomb, the end of the war would have been much delayed and the resulting carnage far more obscene. I also would very likely not be here, what with a granddad dead on a Japanese beach, and would not be able to hold the history revisionists in the contempt so many of them richly deserve. I do think we are all exceedingly fortunate things turned out the way they did, not just on the political/military end, but the quantum physical side as well. We didn't test the U235 bomb because (a) we knew it would work and (b) as someone else here pointed out we didn't have at the time enough U235 to make another bomb. How very lucky then are we that the simple to make sure fire slam-one-chunk-into-the-other-in-a-gunbarrel u235 bomb's main ingredient requires an enormous infrastructure to manufacture, while the comparatively easy to procure plutonium for the Fat Man bomb requires an incredibly difficult implosion using very picky shaped charges to work. The subject fascinates and disgusts me. I don't remember who said it, but the quote is truth x100000, " I don't know how WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." At the same time as we rightly commemorate the victims of the bombs, we should also quietly celebrate, on behalf of the whole species; another year went by and we're still here. May we continue to not blow ourselves up.
Jay_W wrote: I don't remember who said it, but the quote is truth x100000, " I don't know how WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."
That one is usually attributed to Einstein, though many had similar thoughts at the time.
In reply to Jay_W:
Exactly. Well said and very accurate. I hope the revisionists and apologists take a note here and let this drop.
I think it is pretty well accepted that the Japanese where making some overtures for some sort of surrender (negotiated peace). Of course, it is important to note that the allies had decided that any surrender by Germany or Japan would be unconditional. It is a it murky though, and has clearly been obscured by various people inserting their own opinion on the subject.
A quick search reveals some information on the topic. I have to say though the suspiciously officially named sites don't inspire a lot of confidence.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
This one talks of the various attempts by Japan, but being unsuccessful because although they were willing to make all other concessions, they wanted to maintain the emperer (as noted, ironic since the US decided to keep the emperer to help maintain stability)
The site seems to have a suspicious number or articles about Nazis (!), and claims to be a sight about war and it consequences.
While this one talks of the whole thing being a hoax:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/08/hiroshima_hoax_japans_wllingne.html
This site is clearly a pretty right wing political oriented site.
I have to say, I find it pretty disgusting that this topic has become some sort of political proxy war. WTF! It's like people are just unable to see past their petty political leaning. Sad really. It does however explain some of the behavior in this thread.
Wikipedia might be the most trusted site here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
It talks of Japan's attempts (e.g. through Russia) to try and end the war, but it seems likely as noted on the one site, that a full unconditional surrender was unlikely to be offered. The "saving of face" by the Japanese I am sure was a huge issue here. The willingness to want to fight until the end was clearly a strong opinion, and of course very inline with the Japanese thinking at the time.
Putting a bit of thought to this, these are my opinions on the subject presented here (I know, I know, it's pretty much dead, please thread nazis, don'r report me 
):
Yes.... buuuuttttt, the surrender they where offering was almost certainly never going to be accepted by the allies (the Potsdam conference had established only unconditional is surrender is acceptible).
I say yes, and the reason why is that they did that after the dropping of the a-bombs. They where, in general, very much against it but given the destruction and death of the bombs, they where convinced. It seems reasonable to say, enough fire bombing death and destruction, they would do the same. I suspect a lot of this is honor bound. To fight and die for the Emperor is certainly very honorable (maybe the most honorable), but to die from bombs dropped from the sky, not so much.
No.... buuuuuttttt, dropping the bombs was likely the most "humane" thing to do. Fire bombing until surrender, or invasion would have caused FAR more US AND Japanese casualties. Yes, the bomb saved Japanese lives (radiation poisoning sucks, but so does sever burns or burning to death).
I say no, and I find it a bit absurd that it was the plan (spring of 46 I believe). In a way, I suspect, the Japanese wanted the US to invade. Why? As noted above, to fight and die for the Emperor and the homeland, is the height of honor. I feel confident LeMay's (a bit of a ruthless bastard) assertion that isolation and firebombing would eventually bring them to full surrender. Firebombing would have been FAR less expensive in lives or resources then invasion (and FAR FAR FAR less expensive then the a-bombs considering the whole program)
Because frankly, that is what generals and admirals do, and that is what they had been doing, rather successfully for that last few years. What of the casualties? well, that is the cost of war isn't it and not as large a concern to generals and admirals (especially back then) as it probably should be ("...and the generals sat, as the lines on the map, moved from side to side..."). Of note also, especially during that era (the creation of a strategic air force), there was a very big rivalry between the Air Force and the other branches (sick, but true).
I suspect they where an influence, but not really that much. The Russians were really not much of a concern considering we had to help them invade (their invasion of the Kurals was part of the Potsdam agreement). For the Manhattan project, I am sure there was a very strong inertia to bring the program to it's planned conclusion, but as noted, that likely only saved lives. I suspect it made the decision a bit easier though.
Certainly. As noted, it very likely saved a LOT more US (because the insistence on invading) and Japanese lives then it cost.
Very sadly, I say yes and I think it really really sucks. This goes for the "the Japanese would never had surrendered, if you say the bombs weren't necessary you are and idiot" and the "We didn't need to drop the bomb" crowd. Intentionally teaching people "wrong" for whatever reason, has always disgusted me.
Despite my disgust of the last point, I do thank everyone for discussing this topic. It has made me review what I know and look into the topic. I had originally thought there was a bit more motivation on Japans part to surrender (I was not considering the assertion of unconditional surrender properly) before the bombs and never really thought of the bombs saving Japanese lives.
I hope others have learned something also and long threads are NOT bad.
wbjones wrote: I'm guessing he's upset that someone used the L word … *shrug*
Lesbians? I berkeleying love lesbians
aircooled wrote: ####Does current political idealism affect peoples view of history? Very sadly, I say yes and I think it really really sucks. This goes for the "the Japanese would never had surrendered, if you say the bombs weren't necessary you are and idiot" and the "We didn't need to drop the bomb" crowd. Intentionally teaching people "wrong" for whatever reason, has always disgusted me. ###In conclusion: Despite my disgust of the last point, I do thank everyone for discussing this topic. It has made me review what I know and look into the topic. I had originally thought there was a bit more motivation on Japans part to surrender (I was not considering the assertion of unconditional surrender properly) before the bombs and never really thought of the bombs saving Japanese lives.
The Japanese were in desperate dire straits at the end of the war; I recently read an account written by a US sub captain who had taken command of a Japanese sub. His writing made it plain that the sub had not only been built to substandard specs it was being fueled by soybean oil. They were scraping the bottom or the barrel for sure.
I think that, had we invaded, the Japanese would have eventually surrendered and that would have made the bomb unnecessary. But the problem was, no one could say how long this final phase would have gone on or how many lives it would cost on both sides. It was an ugly but neessary action, one I hope we are never faced with ever again.
July 16, 1945 was the date of the first US nuclear test (Trinity). It was a whopping three weeks before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Not much time, not much material.
aircooled wrote: I hope others have learned something also and long threads are NOT bad.
Nope, they aren't.
After not hearing from Japan for a couple of days after Nagasaki, Lemay wanted to drop a third bomb.
aircooled wrote:RFloyd wrote: ...the ONLY thing that I feel is, that boys and girls, is a public that should have been VERY mad at their government.You seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the Japanese culture used to think (still do to certain extent I imagine). The more popular feeling was likely more in the line of being ashamed that they were defeated and that they failed their emperor.
Despite your condescending tone, I'll politely point out that my statement about them being "mad at their government" was a bit tongue-in-cheek and an attempt at sarcastic humor. 
As far as your point, do I need to hold your hand and walk you back through the first part of my post? I understand their culture of the time very well, been an avid student of the period and the conflict since I got my first book on the subject nearly 40 years ago.
Yes, sorry about that. It was pretty unclear to me that that was done in humor. Certainly a bit of second level (that is, more sophisticated) humor at least.
Unfortunately it is pretty common for people to misunderstand the way people thought in different times and cultures.
Being a student of the culture, what are you thoughts on the idea that the Japanese would fight to the last man during an invasion? I believe this of most of the military, but I am not sure this would apply to the civilians. The use of Okinawa civilians killing themselves seems to be a bad example, they were apparently inspired to that by some pretty heavy propaganda. If the Emperor asked it of them I am sure they would, but as a standard practice its seems to me the civilians are bit more on the level of cattle as far as honor in battle / war.
Of course, the level of propaganda that was likely to be put out, I suspect they would be well convince the Americans were manifestation of evil. Probably pretty similar to the North Korean creations:
Both sides used massive propaganda to demonize the other. The Japanese were taught that Americans were monsters who ate babies. Americans were taught that Japanese were sub-humans. Obviously both sides were wrong but that's war.
Everything that I've learned and seen regarding an actual invasion of the Japanese homeland indicates that civilians were being trained to fight back with spears and that self sacrifice was perfectly acceptable so long as they took one US soldier with them.
Given the luxury of hindsight it's easy to say the bomb wasn't necessary but I refuse to second guess the decisions made during a hard fought war with a seemingly intractable opponent.
Aircooled, tough to say. I do think the populace as a whole would have resisted viciously, and I do believe the propaganda would have driven the people to believe their only choices were honorable death fighting or an even worse death at the hands of the "American monsters." I think it could/would have been every bit as bad as Okinawa as there would have been every bit as much of a sense of desperation on the Japanese mainland as there was on that island. If the Emperor were to have decreed as such..
But as goes the Emperor, so go the people. The impossible to answer question is at what point would the Emperor have come to the same ultimate decision that he did after Nagasaki? Would he have allowed the war to drag on, possibly for years, until the whole of Japan was destroyed and the US stood at the gates of Tokyo before he capitulated? He knew the Russians were coming, and Japan lacked the capacity to put up even the faintest of defenses in the North...the Japanese would fight to every last man, woman, and child... and the Russians may well have killed (or worse) every last one. He had to have known that the defeat of Japan was an eventuality and at that point not in question, and yes, there was an effort in Japan to end the war and sue for peace, however unpopular with the military. The terms of that peace I think were the only thing stopping it from happening sooner than it did. If unconditional surrender was the only thing the Allies would accept, it apparently took "the bomb" to settle the terms of the peace in the Emperor's mind.
Minus the introduction of the atomic weapon, I'd like to think that the Emperor would have come to the same decision sooner rather than later, but a large part of me says that it may have taken a lot to break their resolve, as much of Japan had already been allowed to burn in the manner that it had... I fear it would have been very bad, every bit as bad and bloody as the worst pessimists predicted. I fear the people of Japan would have followed the Emperor to their deaths, every last one, to the best of their ability regardless of propaganda, if he had demanded it. To do otherwise would have been unthinkable.
KyAllroad wrote: Both sides used massive propaganda to demonize the other. The Japanese were taught that Americans were monsters who ate babies. Americans were taught that Japanese were sub-humans. Obviously both sides were wrong but that's war. Everything that I've learned and seen regarding an actual invasion of the Japanese homeland indicates that civilians were being trained to fight back with spears and that self sacrifice was perfectly acceptable so long as they took one US soldier with them. Given the luxury of hindsight it's easy to say the bomb wasn't necessary but I refuse to second guess the decisions made during a hard fought war with a seemingly intractable opponent.
Excellently put. What is done is done. We can't change the past, but lets hope that we will remember the lessons learned when we need it most.
RFloyd wrote: ...The impossible to answer question is at what point would the Emperor have come to the same ultimate decision that he did after Nagasaki? Would he have allowed the war to drag on, possibly for years, until the whole of Japan was destroyed and the US stood at the gates of Tokyo before he capitulated? ...
This is the part that I find interesting. They commit to fighting to the last. Hundreds of thousands are being killed by aerial bombardment, yet they hold fast. The a-bombs drop, which realistically are just a slightly faster version of the bombing that is already going one, which they are holding against, yet those cause them to capitulate. Certainly the bombs are more impressive, "flashy" (pun not intended) if you will, but to the leaders, are they truly more horrific? Clearly there was a point that they where not willing to simply continue being killed despite their assertions.
I honestly think the Japanese where putting up with the bombing and waiting for the Americans to invade, to provide a more honorable defense / death. If they were certain that the US would simply keep bombing until they gave up, they would at some point (probably not too long after when they did) agreed to surrender. Maybe the bombs to them meant that the US had no need to invade anymore and they where to killed in this less honorable way.
BTW (it's a bit hard to look up): Do you know if most of the Japanese leaders committed suicide at the end of the war? It looks like Tojo tried, but you would think that would be the honorable thing to do for all of them. Of course, sometimes leaders don't exactly follow the same rules as everyone else...
In case anyone takes this wrong. I strongly believe the bombs saved Japanese lives, so they were a "good" thing, for everyone. The prospect and potential of future use is what makes them horrific.
I think we're just about totally of the same mind concerning this, excepting for my pessimism concerning the notion that they would be done in by bombing alone, at least as quickly as they were, if we didn't invade. I think they felt that an invasion meant a fight on their soil, and a better chance for them to inflict pain on us, I agree. The psychological impact of the bomb (and them not knowing we only had two) that one bomber can now do the damage of one hundred bombers, I believe that is what moved the Emperor to change course. I think that minus that psychological effect, they keep their resolve, at least a good bit longer and try to force a fight on the beaches. But seeing an awful new weapon employed on them, the likes of which the world had never previously seen, had such a shocking effect (even though it only really did equal or less damage than the conventional and firebombings) it represented an escalation in our ability while they were struggling to hold on. I suspect that had Hirohito found out we had no more such bombs readily available he may not have accepted unconditional surrender and instead held fast.
Interesting questions to ponder, certainly.
To add an interesting possibility, the Japanese had captured a P-51 pilot who told them a bit of a story:
The full cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, and spent most of the day debating surrender. As the Big Six had done, the cabinet split, with neither Tōgō's position nor Anami's attracting a majority.[88] Anami told the other cabinet ministers that, under torture, a captured American P-51 fighter pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed "in the next few days". The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan Project and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading.[89] In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945.[90] The third bomb probably would have been used against Tokyo.[91]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
I am not sure how he knew about the bombs, perhaps the interrogators told him? Still an interesting thought, one P-51 pilot may have served as the straw on the camels back that saves potentially millions of lives.
In reply to aircooled:
These days those no longer exist, your best bet is to find something close to what you're looking for on YouTube.
I have been watching a lot of those on there lately. I miss the old History, Discovery, TLC, and Military channels. 
Another thought: remember the movie 'Red Dawn'? Its premise is the US being invaded by Russia and the way the locals went underground to fight. I'm thinking it's not far off the truth of what would happen for real. What makes us think the Japanese would have done any different?
Also keep in mind the German 'Werwolf' of the last part of the war in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf
http://www.resist.com/updates/2009/MAY_09/NaziWerewolves.html
Ever seen a pic of Patton's Jeep?
Notice the vertical bar? Its purpose: the Werwolf would string piano wire at roughly neck height to decapitate whoever was riding in one, because they were typically officers being driven by enlisted. The bar would break the piano wire. According to some sources, they continued to fight even after the death of Hitler and the surrender of Germany but the proof is spotty.
Regardless, the experience with them lent some credence to the school of thought that the Japanese would not surrender quickly. There's some evidence that would have been the case; there were several reports of Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender and instead became fugitives in the jungles around Southeast Asia. One guy hid out for 30 years in the Phillipine jungles. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/world/asia/japan-philippines-ww2-soldier-dies/ Sure he's just one guy, but if his point of view was shared by only 1/10 of the population it woulda gotten ugly.
Curmudgeon wrote: What makes us think the Japanese would have done any different?
For a more recent example, look at anything in the middle-east.
Curmudgeon wrote: Another thought: remember the movie 'Red Dawn'? Its premise is the US being invaded by Russia and the way the locals went underground to fight. I'm thinking it's not far off the truth of what would happen for real. What makes us think the Japanese would have done any different?...
Ohhhhh... I just had a pretty cool movie (maybe just a short) idea.
Basically Red Dawn, defending the homeland against an evil invading army. In this case though, they are overwhelming and a total loss is eventual. At the end of the movie, when all is lost, there is a switch or fade of some sort that reveals, the heroes of the movie where actually Japanese and the invaders American. Maybe something a bit like Life of Pi, if you have ever seen that but in this case someone is narrating the story and the listener is adding the assumptions.
The attempted coup in those final days is also another fascinating footnote of history to look into.
You'll need to log in to post.
