Hiroshima debate? - Page 4




 
--
 
August 6th, 2005  
Ashes
 
Was there no alternative to the dropping the Atomic bombs at that particular time?

Japan was blockaded and almost out of raw materials and low on food and the fire bomb raids were almost unapposed, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, and everyone must have known it.
So why was it imperitave to invade, and risk heavy casualties, or drop the bombs?

The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne, which was given later anyway.

Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was set to begin in November 1945; and later Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, scheduled for the spring of 1946,
the bombs were dropped on Aug. 6th and 9th, so what was the haste, could'nt the bombing have been put back to a latter date, closer to the invasion time if diplomacy failed?

Some critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union who, under Vasilevsky, were poised to run through the Japanese army in the biggest land battle of the Pacific war, taking out 600,000 of them, and the Americans wanted it finished before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific.


Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.
August 6th, 2005  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Well, certainly not as much a factor as the other considerations, but I do believe it was weighed in. Americans hated the Japanese at the time it's true, but we do not as a people take any joy in killing even for vengeance.
After Pearl Harbour, the US Government beat the "vengence" drum very loud.

Read "Hell in the Pacific" and many other sources.
August 6th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Winston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Well, certainly not as much a factor as the other considerations, but I do believe it was weighed in. Americans hated the Japanese at the time it's true, but we do not as a people take any joy in killing even for vengeance.
After Pearl Harbour, the US Government beat the "vengence" drum very loud.

Read "h**l in the Pacific" and many other sources.
Why don't you read my full posts? If you had, you would know that my father fought the Japanese in the Pacific as a US Marine. My mother's brother was a POW of them and was forced into slave labor by them. I know full well what happened in the Pacific. That was not what I was talking about in so much as what the US administration and the American people as a whole felt. Vengeance yes, but killing for the sake of killing no - not the greater majority of Americans.
--
August 6th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
Japan was blockaded and almost out of raw materials and low on food and the fire bomb raids were almost unapposed, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, and everyone must have known it.
So why was it imperitave to invade, and risk heavy casualties, or drop the bombs?
Well, Japan wasnt even thinking about surrender and was going to fight to the last man. So as has been stated before and before in this thread dropping the bombs saved lives.
August 6th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Yup


The bombs saved lot of lives alrihgt. Can you imagine the civilian casualties if war dragged on? Civilian casualties would not be only in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would happen at everywhere in Japan. Can you imagine the Russians joined the fightas well, there would be lot more vengence besides coming from the US corner.

It is very easy to call the US evil now-a-day, but Japan called this on themselves when it attacked other Asian countries and bombed Pearl Harbor.

Question: Howcome, Japan, an aggressor and of WWII is getting so much empathies and moral support while the victims are being neglected? Why do the victims always being judged while the perpetrators enjoy the rights of humanities?
August 6th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 

Topic: Re: Yup


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
The bombs saved lot of lives alrihgt. Can you imagine the civilian casualties if war dragged on? Civilian casualties would not be only in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would happen at everywhere in Japan. Can you imagine the Russians joined the fightas well, there would be lot more vengence besides coming from the US corner.

It is very easy to call the US evil now-a-day, but Japan called this on themselves when it attacked other Asian countries and bombed Pearl Harbor.

Question: Howcome, Japan, an aggressor and of WWII is getting so much empathies and moral support while the victims are being neglected? Why do the victims always being judged while the perpetrators enjoy the rights of humanities?
Mmm Boobies I like the way you think dude 8)
August 7th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Good points Ashes, allow me to respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashes
Was there no alternative to the dropping the Atomic bombs at that particular time?

Japan was blockaded and almost out of raw materials and low on food and the fire bomb raids were almost unapposed, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, and everyone must have known it.
So why was it imperitave to invade, and risk heavy casualties, or drop the bombs?

The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne, which was given later anyway.
By "Japanese Doves" I assume you mean those who were pushing for peace. They were hard at work, certainly, and they had the deck so thoroughly stacked against them that their chances of success were extremely poor indeed. The "never die, never surrender" Japanese Warhawks were even so insane as to attempt to kidnap the Emperor to stop him from surrendering after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both lying under the mushroom clouds of Atom Bombs. I think that the reality of the Atom Bomb confronting Japan's warhawks with the possibility of no honorable death in battle ... I think it instilled enough doubt for the surrender to actually happen. Lets be honest, 1.) These folks were nuts and they didn't seem to care how many Japanese died. They were all for arming the women and children, for instance. They were already using Kamakaze attacks: young teenage kids they conviced into suicide "for the glory of Japan". 2.) They were quite thoroughly in control.

Quote:
Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was set to begin in November 1945; and later Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, scheduled for the spring of 1946,
the bombs were dropped on Aug. 6th and 9th, so what was the haste, could'nt the bombing have been put back to a latter date, closer to the invasion time if diplomacy failed?
My reading of history, I don't see diplomacy creating a satisfactory outcome. To be blunt, Japan needed to be completely declawed and defanged. Only Nazi Germany can compare with WW2 Japan's blatant irresponsibility and attrocities in war. Japan would have been very unlikely to accept surrender scenarios in which they were robbed of their ability of waging war in the future. Nothing less was acceptable from China and the USA's point of view.

Quote:
Some critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons,
Quite true and none too surprising that Truman was influenced by the enormous amount of money that the Manhattan Project had cost. This was only one factor of many.

Quote:
exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union who, under Vasilevsky, were poised to run through the Japanese army in the biggest land battle of the Pacific war, taking out 600,000 of them, and the Americans wanted it finished before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific.
For this, we can be grateful. Manchuria and the whole of Korea might have become the another addition to the Soviet empire.

It's not such a bad thing that the USSR faced one simple fact throughout the Cold War: The USA nuked someone before, they might just do it again. That one simple fact was invaluable in deterring any and all plans that the USSR might have had to conquer ... well, anything. The Western Powers of the USA, France and the UK had a pretty good idea that the USSR would need substantial deterrent in all regards. That was definitely a factor in the decision.


Quote:
Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.
The truth of the matter was pretty simple though: Only the USA could have invaded Japan. The loss of Manchuria was of secondary importance and the Japanese leadership would have cheerfully abandonned it entirely if they could have somehow returned all the troops stationed there back to Japan to defend it. It was only the USA and its Navy that made this impossible. It was only the USA that had any chance of invading Japan. The Russians asked if we wanted any help in the invasion. We said "no thank you, very kind of you, go away please." The rapid succession of military defeats at least demonstrated how the fight for Japan itself would surely play out. Not a pretty picture of course. The Atom Bombs were the all important last straw. Like I already said, the warhawks that were running everything lost just enough confidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to allow some of them to contemplate surrender at all. The Atom Bombs were not the only factor and I don't think that anyone is claiming that they were.
August 7th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.
Quote:
The truth of the matter was pretty simple though: Only the USA could have invaded Japan. The loss of Manchuria was of secondary importance and the Japanese leadership would have cheerfully abandonned it entirely if they could have somehow returned all the troops stationed there back to Japan to defend it. It was only the USA and its Navy that made this impossible. It was only the USA that had any chance of invading Japan. The Russians asked if we wanted any help in the invasion. We said "no thank you, very kind of you, go away please." The rapid succession of military defeats at least demonstrated how the fight for Japan itself would surely play out. Not a pretty picture of course. The Atom Bombs were the all important last straw. Like I already said, the warhawks that were running everything lost just enough confidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to allow some of them to contemplate surrender at all.
The loss of Manchuria would've been a staging ground, and yes indeed the Russians could have invaded. This was the root of the "rush" as was stated. But if you were a nation who had already lost hundreds of thousands of men, wouldn't you employ a weapon that could end the losses as soon as possible? Both these factors were the paramount reasons for Hiroshima.
August 7th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The thing of it is, Charge7, I don't think that the USA would have let the Russians join in. The Russians were quite willing, but the USA had control of the seas. Nothing was getting past the US Navy without her permission. Russia did not have anything close to enough naval strength to press the matter. The question was, would the USA have bowed to the need for help if things got hairy in the invasion? I'm sure that Stalin was hoping so.
August 7th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
godofthunder9010.......Russia had been involved in the Assault on Japan, it driven the Japanese troops from China and had mounted a seaborne assault on some of the more Northern Japanese Islands which they still hold to this day.