Then, you are saying Eisenhower, the General not the President, did not want to win the war. Because he considered it was not necessary to drop the bombs before being elected president, he did it when he was still a general.Kmarion wrote:
I'm saying quite simply there is a difference. There is the role of a Politician who cares about public opinion and there is the role of a general that does everything in his power to win and protect his troops. The Generals role is to defeat the enemy with overwhelming force. The Politicians role is to play on the moral issues the voters care about. The Japanese treated the Emperor as a living deity and would not surrender lightly. 4000 dead kamikazes gave their lives to illustrate this point.sergeriver wrote:
Are you saying that General Dwight Eisenhower was not a good Commander and a strong military leader? Who put him in such important position then? You say "Eisenhower was after all a politician". Wasn't Truman a politician too? Eisenhower was in a Commanding role and he surely didn't want to drop the bombs as he stated, because he knew better than any of us that the Japs were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to drop them given these facts.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone in a Commanding role surely would do what they could to end the war swiftly with minimal troop loss. That is what a good "General" does. Eisenhower might have been attempting to be a good "Person". Not really a requirement to be a strong military leader. Eisenhower was after all a politician as well.
Politicians should make Policy, Generals should win the battles.
Poll
Were the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Necessary?
| Yes | 70% | 70% - 134 | ||||
| No | 29% | 29% - 57 | ||||
| Total: 191 | ||||||
Serge he made those comments after obviously when he was a politician. You name one Commander who would not like to to win a war with one bombing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
some people here are getting the wrong impression. personally, i did state before, i never said it was a good thing. it was necessary. the only other ways would have involved killing more people. yea its bad, thats why they havent been used since. i dont wish it on anybody ever again. but its in the past. and uber, you realize you say in your post that no one has the right to say if it should be used or not, yet you yourself say it cannot under any circumstances be used. you might want to rethink that one. no one is trying to justify or making any real decisions here, it is a forum debate. radicals on either side are still radicals. that makes you just as thick headed as the next guy.
We killed more people directly with the conventional bombing of Tokyo than we did at Hiroshima.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Maybe some of you need to look at the big "what if" picture also. Say we didn't drop it. We invade Japan.
Forget how many more lives would have been lost. Would the UK have helped out the Americans? What would happen if the Soviets attacked also? What Japan have ended up like East / West Berlin?
Forget how many more lives would have been lost. Would the UK have helped out the Americans? What would happen if the Soviets attacked also? What Japan have ended up like East / West Berlin?
nobody has yet to reply with an alternative to the nuclear attacks, something that could've ended the war with less human toll. until its proven to me that it was possible, my mind is set.
theres been plenty of mention of the millions of casualties had we invaded, but everyone seems to overlook and ignore that.
theres been plenty of mention of the millions of casualties had we invaded, but everyone seems to overlook and ignore that.
Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2007-02-02 06:46:24)
Thinking in that manner would not allow much room for the American Military action to be painted as an indiscriminate slaughter targeted to cause mass civilian damage.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe some of you need to look at the big "what if" picture also. Say we didn't drop it. We invade Japan.
Forget how many more lives would have been lost. Would the UK have helped out the Americans? What would happen if the Soviets attacked also? What Japan have ended up like East / West Berlin?
The holy shit, "are you telling me that dropping an atomic bomb saved lives" does not coincide with the agenda of a few.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-02 06:47:56)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
well apparently thats what it was all about...//
The millions estimate includes both civillian and military deaths.Kukulcan wrote:
Why should have you killed so many civilians in a ''standard'' war against japan? I bet there would surely have been also in this way , many civilians dead.... but much less. You aren't counting the MILLIONS of japanese people that have their life ruined by some cancer or whatever still nowadays. And anyway , a nuclear bomb has as target CIVILIAN TARGETS .. not military one. If us wanted to hit military targets primarly , they would have launched the bomb on a base or something , not AT THE CENTER OF A CITY.
It's the concept itself that is wrong , not the bomb itself. I mean... a strategic nuclear bombing on enemy positions is really useful... but nuclear-bombing a city is just a ''TERROR TACTIC'' it has no military value at all.
Why take it to the civilian ? The enemy of the us was the japan empire , the governament , not the japanese people.... i think , however.
Part One: The plans were to invade Kyushu - the south island. The island received 95% of its food from the main island. The first thing that would happen is the US forces would blockade & cut all supplies to the island, to isolate the battlefield. Starvation.
Part Two: Previous engagements with the Japanese showed their culture was one where death was preferred to surrender. They would tell civilians that the US serviceman will skin them alive...etc. And also, Okinawa, for instance, many of the civilians jumped from cliffs because of this fear. So invasion of Japan probably means much of the civilian population fights.
I'm not sure if you were aware of these items, which are part of the components within the decision to drop the bombs.
I think you are reffering to this survey http://www.anesi.com/bomb.htm .Pug wrote:
The millions estimate includes both civillian and military deaths.Kukulcan wrote:
Why should have you killed so many civilians in a ''standard'' war against japan? I bet there would surely have been also in this way , many civilians dead.... but much less. You aren't counting the MILLIONS of japanese people that have their life ruined by some cancer or whatever still nowadays. And anyway , a nuclear bomb has as target CIVILIAN TARGETS .. not military one. If us wanted to hit military targets primarly , they would have launched the bomb on a base or something , not AT THE CENTER OF A CITY.
It's the concept itself that is wrong , not the bomb itself. I mean... a strategic nuclear bombing on enemy positions is really useful... but nuclear-bombing a city is just a ''TERROR TACTIC'' it has no military value at all.
Why take it to the civilian ? The enemy of the us was the japan empire , the governament , not the japanese people.... i think , however.
Part One: The plans were to invade Kyushu - the south island. The island received 95% of its food from the main island. The first thing that would happen is the US forces would blockade & cut all supplies to the island, to isolate the battlefield. Starvation.
Part Two: Previous engagements with the Japanese showed their culture was one where death was preferred to surrender. They would tell civilians that the US serviceman will skin them alive...etc. And also, Okinawa, for instance, many of the civilians jumped from cliffs because of this fear. So invasion of Japan probably means much of the civilian population fights.
I'm not sure if you were aware of these items, which are part of the components within the decision to drop the bombs.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes, they were... but, they missed their targets. Argentina was thousands of miles away.. damn, almost.
Yes, but there is something better out there somewhere - I've got a few books that use the figures from previous engagements and apply them to the invasion of Japan. I think we'd have a different image in the world had we gone thru with the invasion of Kyushu. Which is why I don't agree with the logic about the "invasion is better" line of thought.Kmarion wrote:
I think you are reffering to this survey http://www.anesi.com/bomb.htm .Pug wrote:
The millions estimate includes both civillian and military deaths.Kukulcan wrote:
Why should have you killed so many civilians in a ''standard'' war against japan? I bet there would surely have been also in this way , many civilians dead.... but much less. You aren't counting the MILLIONS of japanese people that have their life ruined by some cancer or whatever still nowadays. And anyway , a nuclear bomb has as target CIVILIAN TARGETS .. not military one. If us wanted to hit military targets primarly , they would have launched the bomb on a base or something , not AT THE CENTER OF A CITY.
It's the concept itself that is wrong , not the bomb itself. I mean... a strategic nuclear bombing on enemy positions is really useful... but nuclear-bombing a city is just a ''TERROR TACTIC'' it has no military value at all.
Why take it to the civilian ? The enemy of the us was the japan empire , the governament , not the japanese people.... i think , however.
Part One: The plans were to invade Kyushu - the south island. The island received 95% of its food from the main island. The first thing that would happen is the US forces would blockade & cut all supplies to the island, to isolate the battlefield. Starvation.
Part Two: Previous engagements with the Japanese showed their culture was one where death was preferred to surrender. They would tell civilians that the US serviceman will skin them alive...etc. And also, Okinawa, for instance, many of the civilians jumped from cliffs because of this fear. So invasion of Japan probably means much of the civilian population fights.
I'm not sure if you were aware of these items, which are part of the components within the decision to drop the bombs.
Sure, two A-Bombs isn't pleasant. But compare it to starving out millions on Kyushu.
So nuking their women and children is bad, but starving them all to death is fine...sergeriver wrote:
Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations: "the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials."
Simple facts of the matter are:
War Sucks.
People Die During Wars.
Military should be fair game, and civilians left alone, but it never works that way.
Japan is pretty self sufficient... Naval blockades can only do so much.
More modern day Americans feel bad about the A-bombs than Japanese. (In fact, all of the Japanese WWII vets I have spoken to actually felt the bombs showed Japan honor, by the fact that America had to use their "ultimate weapon" to end the war with them, because America didn't think it could win any other way.)
They could have done a million "tests" in the desert, but until they hit an actual populated area, the true effects of the bomb could not be realized.
And unfortunate as it was to use, it probably has kept us completely out of a lot wars since then...
Even with the statement "All is fair in love and war" the U.S. never plays fair... If you don't believe me, go ask the Indians how they liked the blankets our military gave them... Oh wait, you can't, they all died from the smallpox that the blankets were contaminated with...
The bold part was interesting to me:
It MOST certainly was NOT necessary. . .
The rules of War, ROE, mechanics of War, technology involved, attitudes, a Nations Borders, Empires, etc - change over time; there is no constant or constant-ethic to be found.
Excepting who is doing the fighting and for what?
It is MEN fighting for another Man’s ideology. Ideology is almost always accepted in the traditional manner; you are told to believe in it - and either you accept it or you don’t.
Conflict is NOT always ended by unconditional surrender - as an ONLY OPTION. It is NOT a constant ethic - nor is it the only military option / goal in War. The mere fact that this may have been the ultimate goal; adopted as US military Ideology at the time - an unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan - OR else:
1.) Constant and continued fire-bombing of Civilian Targets.
And / or
2.) Nuclear attack.
Did America understand Japan’s social identity? Their Ideology? Yes - they did, they knew what they were doing when “unconditional surrender” was conceived of as an only option - it would keep Japan in the War; even though they could have created a conditional surrender proposal that would have ended the War.
America had produced, at the time, 2 A-Bombs - not 3, 4. . .
Had Japan NOT surrendered after the 2 A-Bombs - I see reason to think that America WOULD HAVE GONE through with a COSTLY LAND invasion - at the time. A land invasion to achieve unconditional surrender - this is a military hypothetical; it is NOT a reason (this is what war planners do - create hypothetical situations).
There is NO real reason to think General LeMay’s, ongoing fire-bombing of Civilian Targets would not simply just continue (if Japan did not surrender in response to the A-bomb twice-dropped) - and probably would have (if the goal was unconditional surrender as an only option). The goal of war is not just one-ethic; eliminating a Nations ability to wage war - and conditional surrender - are others.
Also saying that Japanese (military) MEN’S treatment of civilians, women & children was in-human - therefore it was AOK to target Japanese civilian, women & children - IS MORONIC at best. It is tribalistic reasoning (“eye for an eye” stupidity).
Japan WAS already defeated - Imperial Japan was over no matter what - unconditional surrender or conditional surrender. Their ability to wage war as an Empire was at end before the first A-bomb was dropped.
(IMO) The war was LOST the day they woke a slumbering Giant (the US) with a stupid attack on Pearl Harbor.
Although Truman liked to take full credit for the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, in fact, he was advised by a prestigious group, The National Defense Research Committee, consisting of George L. Harrison, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Dr. James B. Conant, president of Harvard, who had spent the First World War developing more effective poison gases, and who in 1942 had been commissioned by Winston Churchill to develop an Anthrax bomb to be used on Germany, which would have killed every living thing in Germany. Conant was unable to perfect the bomb before Germany surrendered, otherwise he would have had another line to add to his resume. His service on Truman's Committee which advised him to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, added to his previous record as a chemical warfare professional, allowed me to describe him in papers filed before the United States Court of Claims in 1957, as "the most notorious war criminal of the Second World War". As Gauleiter of Germany after the war, he had ordered the burning of my book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, ten thousand copies having been published in Oberammergau, the site of the world-famed Passion Play.
Also on the committee were Dr. Karl Compton, and James F. Byrnes, acting Secretary of State. For thirty years, Byrnes had been known as Bernard Baruch's man in Washington. With his Wall Street profits, Baruch had built the most lavish estate in South Carolina, which he named Hobcaw Barony. As the wealthiest man in South Carolina, this epitome of the carpet-bagger also controlled the political purse strings. Now Baruch was in a position to dictate to Truman, through his man Byrnes, that he should drop the atomic bomb on Japan.
Anyways - was dropping the A-Bomb TWICE necessary?The blueprint for depleted uranium weapons is a 1943 declassified document from the Manhattan Project. Harvard President and physicist James B. Conant, who developed poison gas in World War I, was brought into the Manhattan Project by the father of presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry’s father served at a high level in the Manhattan Project and was a CIA agent.
Conant was chair of the S-1 Poison Gas Committee, which recommended developing poison gas weapons from the radioactive trash of the atomic bomb project in World War II. At that time, it was known that radioactive materials dispersed in bombs from the air, from land vehicles or on the battlefield produced very fine radioactive dust which would penetrate all protective clothing, any gas mask or filter or the skin. By contaminating the lungs and blood, it could kill or cause illness very quickly.
They also recommended it as a permanent terrain contaminant, which could be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural land with the radioactive dust.
It MOST certainly was NOT necessary. . .
The rules of War, ROE, mechanics of War, technology involved, attitudes, a Nations Borders, Empires, etc - change over time; there is no constant or constant-ethic to be found.
Excepting who is doing the fighting and for what?
It is MEN fighting for another Man’s ideology. Ideology is almost always accepted in the traditional manner; you are told to believe in it - and either you accept it or you don’t.
Conflict is NOT always ended by unconditional surrender - as an ONLY OPTION. It is NOT a constant ethic - nor is it the only military option / goal in War. The mere fact that this may have been the ultimate goal; adopted as US military Ideology at the time - an unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan - OR else:
1.) Constant and continued fire-bombing of Civilian Targets.
And / or
2.) Nuclear attack.
Did America understand Japan’s social identity? Their Ideology? Yes - they did, they knew what they were doing when “unconditional surrender” was conceived of as an only option - it would keep Japan in the War; even though they could have created a conditional surrender proposal that would have ended the War.
America had produced, at the time, 2 A-Bombs - not 3, 4. . .
Had Japan NOT surrendered after the 2 A-Bombs - I see reason to think that America WOULD HAVE GONE through with a COSTLY LAND invasion - at the time. A land invasion to achieve unconditional surrender - this is a military hypothetical; it is NOT a reason (this is what war planners do - create hypothetical situations).
There is NO real reason to think General LeMay’s, ongoing fire-bombing of Civilian Targets would not simply just continue (if Japan did not surrender in response to the A-bomb twice-dropped) - and probably would have (if the goal was unconditional surrender as an only option). The goal of war is not just one-ethic; eliminating a Nations ability to wage war - and conditional surrender - are others.
Also saying that Japanese (military) MEN’S treatment of civilians, women & children was in-human - therefore it was AOK to target Japanese civilian, women & children - IS MORONIC at best. It is tribalistic reasoning (“eye for an eye” stupidity).
Japan WAS already defeated - Imperial Japan was over no matter what - unconditional surrender or conditional surrender. Their ability to wage war as an Empire was at end before the first A-bomb was dropped.
(IMO) The war was LOST the day they woke a slumbering Giant (the US) with a stupid attack on Pearl Harbor.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-02 09:46:59)
What if = making assumptions.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe some of you need to look at the big "what if" picture also. Say we didn't drop it. We invade Japan.
Forget how many more lives would have been lost. Would the UK have helped out the Americans? What would happen if the Soviets attacked also? What Japan have ended up like East / West Berlin?
The thing is most people at that moment knew Japan was already defeated before the bombings and then there was no need to drop them. All those "what if" you say, would not have happened anyway. The Japs probably would have surrendered without the bombs or an invasion. But now, I'm making assumptions myself, so it's the same case.
I was trying to say you have to understand what they may have been thinking.sergeriver wrote:
What if = making assumptions.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe some of you need to look at the big "what if" picture also. Say we didn't drop it. We invade Japan.
Forget how many more lives would have been lost. Would the UK have helped out the Americans? What would happen if the Soviets attacked also? What Japan have ended up like East / West Berlin?
The thing is most people at that moment knew Japan was already defeated before the bombings and then there was no need to drop them. All those "what if" you say, would not have happened anyway. The Japs probably would have surrendered without the bombs or an invasion. But now, I'm making assumptions myself, so it's the same case.
Japan was desperate and Fanatical to the end. Remember they used suicide pilots? By August 9th, American aircraft were showering leaflets all over Japan informing its people that "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. Japan responded by starting to arm the old and very young as well as women. The Japanese military was preparing for a massive assault by the US. In the three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over 1,700 US soldiers died and almost 20,000 Chinese soldiers died. Further, it is estimated that there were 80,000 Korean, Chinese and other comfort women (forced prostitutes) in the service of Japan, at this point. The rapid end of the war, stopped the slaughter.
Given Bushido fanaticism, it is likely that almost every imperial soldier would have to be killed or personally captured.
We think the recriminations and second-guessing today about the decision made then are bad, but think what they would be like if it came out that we had the means to end the war quickly, but chose not to do so. What would we say to the families of those who died needlessly if they knew we could have taken actions that would have spared their lives but were afraid to take them?
Given Bushido fanaticism, it is likely that almost every imperial soldier would have to be killed or personally captured.
We think the recriminations and second-guessing today about the decision made then are bad, but think what they would be like if it came out that we had the means to end the war quickly, but chose not to do so. What would we say to the families of those who died needlessly if they knew we could have taken actions that would have spared their lives but were afraid to take them?
mcjagdflieger wrote:
well apparently thats what it was all about...//
Par for the course, though. If a camel farts in Bagdhad we are told the Iraq operation is a chaotic failure. Be glad they aren't saying the Japanese actually WON the war.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"Of the over 20,000 Japanese troops, 18,000 died, and 216 were captured. The Allied forces suffered 26,000 casualties, with nearly 7,000 dead (nearly one-third of all the Marine deaths in World War II). This was the only large engagement of WWII in which the Allied forces suffered more casualties (dead plus injured) than their Japanese opponents."
This is what US troops would face if it became a mainland battle.
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited with saying, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." The quote has become one of the most famous quotes from World War II. The quote was abbreviated in the film Pearl Harbor (2001), where it merely read, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." However, no one has been able to verify that Yamamoto ever actually said (or wrote) those words.
This is what US troops would face if it became a mainland battle.
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited with saying, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." The quote has become one of the most famous quotes from World War II. The quote was abbreviated in the film Pearl Harbor (2001), where it merely read, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." However, no one has been able to verify that Yamamoto ever actually said (or wrote) those words.
I think most of the mature posters here all agree that dropping the bombs was a terrible and sad thing. I equally think we are divided on whether it was necessary. I still think it was, but I tend to side with Topal63 when it comes to the necessity of dropping the second. Given a few more days, the horror of Hiroshima may well have sunk in (the second was dropped only about 3-4 days after the first, probably way too short for accurate reports to get back to the hierarchy) and they may well have surrendered. The trouble is, there is a lot of "may" and "probably" in that and in the end, we weren't there to make the decision (thank God, it is a decision I would not have wanted to make).
As posted earlier, we have not been through 5 years of war leading up to this. I mean, just look at the current war on terror. The actions of 9/11 had many people crying for revenge and that was the culmination of a number of attacks over the past few years, hardly a full out war. While I concede that there were many people who did not cry out for revenge, try and imagine what the public opinion would have been had something like 9/11 happened every few days for 5 years, and the enemy was easy to identify and target (obviously not possible with Al Quaeda (did I spell that right?)). How would the people react then. We were not in their shoes and should not judge them for their actions.
Having said that, the dropping of the bombs also had on-going repercussions, not just in Japan, but the entire cold war. They may well have contributed to no WW3 happening (yet!). Solely on that, and the extraordinarily high casualties the Allies would have suffered in an assault on the main land (just look at Okinawa), the dropping was necessary. Sad, but necessary.
As posted earlier, we have not been through 5 years of war leading up to this. I mean, just look at the current war on terror. The actions of 9/11 had many people crying for revenge and that was the culmination of a number of attacks over the past few years, hardly a full out war. While I concede that there were many people who did not cry out for revenge, try and imagine what the public opinion would have been had something like 9/11 happened every few days for 5 years, and the enemy was easy to identify and target (obviously not possible with Al Quaeda (did I spell that right?)). How would the people react then. We were not in their shoes and should not judge them for their actions.
Having said that, the dropping of the bombs also had on-going repercussions, not just in Japan, but the entire cold war. They may well have contributed to no WW3 happening (yet!). Solely on that, and the extraordinarily high casualties the Allies would have suffered in an assault on the main land (just look at Okinawa), the dropping was necessary. Sad, but necessary.
"Hey, what's up?"
"Ah, nothing!"
"Oh noes! A-BOMBZs1!"
/dead
"Ah, nothing!"
"Oh noes! A-BOMBZs1!"
/dead
Last edited by too_money2007 (2007-02-02 10:43:42)
I definitely say yes.
Those bastards deserved it. My family is from China, my grandpa and grandma would tell me what happened over there when the fucking Japs invaded.
Oh and yeah, the Japs tried denying about what they did. They fucking deserved it.
This is a touchy subject for me, it always hit a nerve for me.
Those bastards deserved it. My family is from China, my grandpa and grandma would tell me what happened over there when the fucking Japs invaded.
Oh and yeah, the Japs tried denying about what they did. They fucking deserved it.
This is a touchy subject for me, it always hit a nerve for me.
2 outcomes would have come of WWII (knowing Hitler was still defeated)
1. The bombs. Not pretty, but warfare of the minds
2. X-Day (planned invasion of mainland Japan)
the latter would have caused MILLIONS of US deaths. Strategic Command wouldn't allow that.
1. The bombs. Not pretty, but warfare of the minds
2. X-Day (planned invasion of mainland Japan)
the latter would have caused MILLIONS of US deaths. Strategic Command wouldn't allow that.
Let's flip it and say Nazi Germany got the bomb in 1942 and nuked Stalingrad and a couple of other cities for good measure, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops but killing millions of civilians and causing the unconditional surrender of Russia, thus rendering the 3rd Reich the major superpower in the world today. Would dropping the bomb have been seen as an act of mercy to spare the lives of a few million soldiers/civilians, or as an act of cruel evil?
Last edited by UON (2007-02-02 10:51:25)
necessary evil
Sorry to break it to you peace loving idiots. There was a plan to bomb Japan another 7 times with a nuke. That was incase they didn't surrender after the first two, thankfuly they did. Now, try to negotiate with the Japs of then and you're in for a treat. It was neccesary, plain and simple.