Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

 

2009-12-06 21:39:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You need to show us the source where they were openly looking to talk about unconditional surrender.
I've not said they were prepared to talk about uncondtional surrender, the only condtion they wanted was to retain the Emperor - which they were eventually allowed in a form.
They were talking about surrender though, in a form the US would have found acceptable, that was the assessment both before and after the bombings.
It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.
Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff - June 18, 1945

https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/Bombs.png

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-06 21:40:21)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-12-06 21:43:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Right in the first page of the one you linked the general compares the situation to Normandy.
And if you read the rest of it they concluded the invasion would be much easier than Normandy, and IIRC would lead quickly to surrender.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-12-06 22:15:56
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6716

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Right in the first page of the one you linked the general compares the situation to Normandy.
And if you read the rest of it they concluded the invasion would be much easier than Normandy, and IIRC would lead quickly to surrender.
Umm... They have never fought the Japanese.

One word: Okinawa.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-12-06 22:23:30
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You need to show us the source where they were openly looking to talk about unconditional surrender.
I've not said they were prepared to talk about unconditional surrender, the only condition they wanted was to retain the Emperor - which they were eventually allowed in a form.
They were talking about surrender though, in a form the US would have found acceptable, that was the assessment both before and after the bombings.
It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.
Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff - June 18, 1945

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … /Bombs.png
What they were talking about was irrelevant. They didn't take our terms, and they didn't give any terms.

We asked them to surrender, we told them exactly what we were going to do if they didn't. They refused to surrender, and we followed through. Unless Truman actually said something about the bomb being a political response or something of the like, there is no reason to believe it was.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Right in the first page of the one you linked the general compares the situation to Normandy.
And if you read the rest of it they concluded the invasion would be much easier than Normandy, and IIRC would lead quickly to surrender.
Like I wouldn't read a source all the way through.

To take pieces:

Casualties would have been no more than Luzon - 31,000

Marshall said airpower alone could not take out the Japanese, as it couldn't have alone with Germany. Eisenhower and Eaker agreed.

"He felt that this plan offered the only way the Japanese could be forced into a feeling of utter helplessness" - of course omitting the use of nuclear weapons to do the same

Many civilians that hadn't cared too much up to this point would fight tenaciously to defend their own ground.
2009-12-06 22:51:03
Karbin
Member
+42|6294
Instructions to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow from the Japanese Foreign Ministry insisted on minimum terms of no occupation of Japan and Japanese control of any war crimes trials, in addition to preservation of the Chrysanthemum Throne. These terms were remarkably similar to those given Germany at the end of the First World War, and the Americans would have rejected them out of hand.

Dilbert, your use of the July 1 1946 doc has you a little confused, I think.
It's a fancy BDA but, you fail to bring in that the Supreme Council was split 3-3 AFTER the first bombing.
Japan would surrender:
On their conditions.
Japan handle her own disarmament.
Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals.
There be no occupation of Japan.
The Emperor remain the Japanese Sovereign Ruler

These conditions were not in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration.

An invasion would NOT have lead to a quick surrender.
Plans were for 3,000 kamikazes would be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.
If that didn't work 3000 more kamikazes and approx 5,000 Shinyo boats, midget subs and fleet subs would be sent to the beaches, "To break the will of the invaders"

The Supreme Council was told that two new divisions of troops would soon be ready for the defence of Kyushu as well.

Last edited by Karbin (2009-12-06 22:53:45)

2009-12-07 00:38:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

Planning an attack whilst negotiating peace.. that sounds a lot like December 7th to me.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-12-07 00:51:44
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6675|Canberra, AUS
Dilbert I think the Americans showed remarkable restraint following the actions of the Japanese in not levelling the entire country given the opportunity.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-12-07 02:01:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:

Dilbert I think the Americans showed remarkable restraint following the actions of the Japanese in not levelling the entire country given the opportunity.
Given the US worked Japan into a corner in the first place, I'd say not.

Both sides were fighting for domination of the resources of the Pacific, no good guys here.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-12-07 02:36:46
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6675|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert I think the Americans showed remarkable restraint following the actions of the Japanese in not levelling the entire country given the opportunity.
Given the US worked Japan into a corner in the first place, I'd say not.

Both sides were fighting for domination of the resources of the Pacific, no good guys here.
Yes, and in return the mass rape, enslavement and murder of the peoples of an entire region is justified, is it?

As well as their treatment of POWs.

The US has had its times where its behaviour is reproachful, but this is not one of them. To suggest that the US is to blame for WWII - and that the US was equally as bad in conduct or that US behaviour justified Japanese misconduct is below board at best and utterly offensive at worst.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-12-07 08:41:25
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6714|US
Dilbert, remember that the international view of the response to the Potsdam Delaration was of PM Suzuki saying they should ignore it!
Unfortunately, the Japanese took a wait and see approach, after Hiroshima.  The army tried to downplay the seriousness of the situation.  The highest leaders were meeting to discuss their response on the  9th.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
2009-12-07 08:45:40
thraSK
Best ___ in Aus
+57|5982
Yes, they should have, because a lot more lives would have been cost during Operation Downfall (invasion of Japanese mainland). They were fanatical people. They would have fought to the very end.

It also showed the world the horrors of nuclear weapons, and in my mind this played a significant part in keeping the cold war so cold

As for cruelty to civilians? Sure, but consider the rape of nanking and other atrocitices commited by the Japanese (Unit 731, another example). Two wrongs dont make a right, fine, but I think it needed to be swiftly ended
2009-12-07 08:55:37
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6716

RAIMIUS wrote:

Dilbert, remember that the international view of the response to the Potsdam Delaration was of PM Suzuki saying they should ignore it!
Unfortunately, the Japanese took a wait and see approach, after Hiroshima.  The army tried to downplay the seriousness of the situation.  The highest leaders were meeting to discuss their response on the  9th.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
When the US made the terms a lot less demanding, the Japanese thought the US was getting weaker and were like "FUCK NO."
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-12-07 09:01:32
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6223|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert I think the Americans showed remarkable restraint following the actions of the Japanese in not levelling the entire country given the opportunity.
Given the US worked Japan into a corner in the first place, I'd say not.

Both sides were fighting for domination of the resources of the Pacific, no good guys here.
/facepalm
2009-12-07 09:49:51
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You need to show us the source where they were openly looking to talk about unconditional surrender.
I've not said they were prepared to talk about unconditional surrender, the only condition they wanted was to retain the Emperor - which they were eventually allowed in a form.
They were talking about surrender though, in a form the US would have found acceptable, that was the assessment both before and after the bombings.
It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression.
Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff - June 18, 1945

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … /Bombs.png
What they were talking about was irrelevant. They didn't take our terms, and they didn't give any terms.

We asked them to surrender, we told them exactly what we were going to do if they didn't. They refused to surrender, and we followed through. Unless Truman actually said something about the bomb being a political response or something of the like, there is no reason to believe it was.
That's not true. The Japanese had offered terms for peace prior to either of the bombs droping.

They had given terms. So what you say is not true (yet again).
2009-12-07 10:08:34
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

thraSK wrote:

Yes, they should have, because a lot more lives would have been cost during Operation Downfall (invasion of Japanese mainland). They were fanatical people. They would have fought to the very end.
No they wouldn't. This is a great example of how most people don't seem to have any clue about the Japanese approach to the war.

The Japanese had always expected the US to become involved in the war and that they would have to seek terms and return some of the territory they had taken over the course of the war. The PM had always said so.

The Japanese offered terms of surrender long before the bombs were dropped, but the terms were not accepted.

They were not going to fight till the very end.
2009-12-07 10:40:00
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You need to show us the source where they were openly looking to talk about unconditional surrender.
I've not said they were prepared to talk about unconditional surrender, the only condition they wanted was to retain the Emperor - which they were eventually allowed in a form.
They were talking about surrender though, in a form the US would have found acceptable, that was the assessment both before and after the bombings.

Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff - June 18, 1945

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … /Bombs.png
What they were talking about was irrelevant. They didn't take our terms, and they didn't give any terms.

We asked them to surrender, we told them exactly what we were going to do if they didn't. They refused to surrender, and we followed through. Unless Truman actually said something about the bomb being a political response or something of the like, there is no reason to believe it was.
That's not true. The Japanese had offered terms for peace prior to either of the bombs droping.

They had given terms. So what you say is not true (yet again).
I didn't mean to imply that they had their own conditional surrender terms. I meant to say that they didn't take our terms, and they didn't comply to anyone else's terms.
2009-12-07 11:10:12
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6667

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert I think the Americans showed remarkable restraint following the actions of the Japanese in not levelling the entire country given the opportunity.
Given the US worked Japan into a corner in the first place, I'd say not.

Both sides were fighting for domination of the resources of the Pacific, no good guys here.
/facepalm
2009-12-07 11:13:21
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6667

Bertster7 wrote:

They were not going to fight till the very end.
Yeah, they quickly surrendered in Iwo Jima...

And all those elderly, women and childen, all just accidently slipped off the cliffs.
2009-12-07 11:26:31
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6542|Texas - Bigger than France

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not true. The Japanese had offered terms for peace prior to either of the bombs droping.

They had given terms. So what you say is not true (yet again).
Sure they did.  But the terms were rejected and the war continued.

I thought the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor was to eliminate the US from interfering in the Pacific - I thought they believed that the US would not retaliate, and if it did it would not be tough to beat them.

So it is true that Japan didn't want to fight the US for the entire war...but unless both sides agree to terms of peace...
2009-12-07 11:41:24
Kez
Member
+778|5703|London, UK
Soviet Union were decking Japan anyway
2009-12-07 11:42:36
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What they were talking about was irrelevant. They didn't take our terms, and they didn't give any terms.

We asked them to surrender, we told them exactly what we were going to do if they didn't. They refused to surrender, and we followed through. Unless Truman actually said something about the bomb being a political response or something of the like, there is no reason to believe it was.
That's not true. The Japanese had offered terms for peace prior to either of the bombs droping.

They had given terms. So what you say is not true (yet again).
I didn't mean to imply that they had their own conditional surrender terms. I meant to say that they didn't take our terms, and they didn't comply to anyone else's terms.
I'm not really interested in what you meant to imply. I'm interested in what you said. You said they didn't give any terms - which they did.

You've asked for sources on stuff and you've been given them - only to change what you're asking for a source for after each is provided.

Loads of the questions you've posed have been neatly answered.

Here you even talk lots of sense:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Oh I have seen the debate on it, but I honestly have not seen (or do not remember) this argument that "the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering and we knew it but we dropped the second bomb anyways."

It seems absurd, and if it were true it pretty much invalidates any other argument at least for the second bomb. I have a really hard time believing it's true.
Evidence has been provided that the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering. They dropped the bomb on Nagasaki in the middle of the Supreme Council meeting where they were voting on whether to surrender ffs. I've also given you quotes from Hirohito which show this to be the case. Numerous quotes from American generals, admirals and other senior military advisors which show that the Americans were aware of this.

That makes a strong case (not airtight, but strong) for the whole "the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering and we knew it but we dropped the second bomb anyways." idea.

Truman is not relevant to this. Despite your protestations he's the only one who matters. American military sources show the US were aware, Japanese sources show the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering. It's a strong case. Dismissing it out of hand is just silly.

The whole idea of Truman dropping the bombs to scare the Russians is completely in line with all the evidence. There are a few diary entries from people at the Potsdam conference with him that support this notion. Nothing concrete, but lots of little bits.

Ilocano wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

They were not going to fight till the very end.
Yeah, they quickly surrendered in Iwo Jima...

And all those elderly, women and childen, all just accidently slipped off the cliffs.
It's a matter of public record. The intentions of the Japanese with regard to the war are documented. It's not like what I'm saying is the slightest bit controversial.

Pug wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not true. The Japanese had offered terms for peace prior to either of the bombs droping.

They had given terms. So what you say is not true (yet again).
Sure they did.  But the terms were rejected and the war continued.

I thought the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor was to eliminate the US from interfering in the Pacific - I thought they believed that the US would not retaliate, and if it did it would not be tough to beat them.

So it is true that Japan didn't want to fight the US for the entire war...but unless both sides agree to terms of peace...
Yes, the Japanese were worried about US involvement and tried to stop them entering the war (in a stupid way - but hey, different cultures and all that). They had always anticipated US involvement and suspected that things would start going badly for them once the US got involved. They planned on seeking terms and trying to keep some of the land they took.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-12-07 11:58:31)

2009-12-07 12:25:28
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Bertster7 wrote:

I'm not really interested in what you meant to imply. I'm interested in what you said. You said they didn't give any terms - which they did.
So your not interested in debate, just in proving me wrong on technicalities. Congratulations, I hope you feel really big now.

Berster7 wrote:

You've asked for sources on stuff and you've been given them - only to change what you're asking for a source for after each is provided.
Opinions of irrelevant people are being posted. Proof of Japanese surrender has to be shown to Truman, his line of thinking has to show that he didn't think this was the way to end the war quickly with as few casualties as possible.  Between that and a definition of "surrender" that includes the Japanese having messages decoded that indicates they might accept some form of conditional surrender...these sources are a joke.

Berster7 wrote:

Here you even talk lots of sense:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Oh I have seen the debate on it, but I honestly have not seen (or do not remember) this argument that "the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering and we knew it but we dropped the second bomb anyways."

It seems absurd, and if it were true it pretty much invalidates any other argument at least for the second bomb. I have a really hard time believing it's true.
Evidence has been provided that the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering. They dropped the bomb on Nagasaki in the middle of the Supreme Council meeting where they were voting on whether to surrender ffs. I've also given you quotes from Hirohito which show this to be the case. Numerous quotes from American generals, admirals and other senior military advisors which show that the Americans were aware of this.
I can't find the quotes that you're talking about, help please.

Berster7 wrote:

That makes a strong case (not airtight, but strong) for the whole "the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering and we knew it but we dropped the second bomb anyways." idea.
How difficult is it to surrender immediately when you clearly have the lives of thousands on the line? In the midst of surrendering...we already dropped a nuclear weapon on them with the clear, written intention to continue to do so and they couldn't raise a white flag in time?

Berster7 wrote:

Despite your protestations he's the only one who matters.
LOL YOU WROTE THAT WRONG I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU MEANT I WIN HAHAHA

Berster7 wrote:

Truman is not relevant to this. Despite your protestations he's the only one who matters. American military sources show the US were aware, Japanese sources show the Japanese were in the midst of surrendering. It's a strong case. Dismissing it out of hand is just silly.
Truman is the one who decided to drop both bombs. The only information that matters as far as what should/should not have been done is the intelligence in his hands. Everything else was useless in the formation of the decision.

Berster7 wrote:

The whole idea of Truman dropping the bombs to scare the Russians is completely in line with all the evidence. There are a few diary entries from people at the Potsdam conference with him that support this notion. Nothing concrete, but lots of little bits.
Yeah, and I read a lot of those accounts of the little exchange between Truman and Stalin. It's a conspiracy theory.

You want the US Government to be the bad guy, and you're making yourself an armchair general with the benefit of 20/20 to make your case. You are lost on all the reason that validates the second bomb as a rational decision made by a fallible person in a shitty situation because you would rather it be a nefariously calculated decision by a powerful government. Fact is there is a lot of stupid and/or evil done by every government, but tactically relevant and arguably humanistic decisions made in war time do not fit that description.
2009-12-07 12:28:20
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Berster7 wrote:

It's a matter of public record. The intentions of the Japanese with regard to the war are documented. It's not like what I'm saying is the slightest bit controversial.
Well documented my ass. Have you not seen the footage of the stocked caves and kamikaze planes for the defense of the mainland? You think any country is going to give up once the war is on their homeland, particularly a country with such a warrior culture? Off the source Dilbert_X provided:

Many civilians that hadn't cared too much up to this point would fight tenaciously to defend their own ground.
2009-12-07 12:39:25
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6223|Escea

Let's not forget that to the Japanese at the time, surrendering was shameful and often took a second seat to suicide.
2009-12-07 12:41:52
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6714|US

Bertster7 wrote:

They planned on seeking terms and trying to keep some of the land they took.
Which was ENTIRELY unacceptable to the US.

We demand unconditional surrender.
The Japanese refuse.
We demand unconditional surrender and threaten their total destruction. (Potsdam)
Suzuki states that the Potsdam Declaration is best ignored.
Japan works on finding a way to surrender conditionally.
We drop a Little Boy.
The leadership of Japan is split.  The Army wants to get more information to downplay Hiroshima.  Hirohito wants to find a way to surrender (conditionally).
While the Japanese set up meetings, the US drops Fat Man.

Hirohito decides to surrender, and does so (with a failed coup on the side).

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard